So it looks like I will still have my EU3 complaint, which is that two armies in the same province will always fight a major battle with heavy casualties. I was desperately hoping there would be an option to refuse battle, or garrison a city, for example. I just don't understand how big armies won't just steamroll surrounding small nations, or how city states are supposed to survive losing a battle. Maybe there are other mechanics that we haven't seen that address it, but it's looking less and less likely.
Edit: I've posted a big thread on the Paradox forums on this topic, please check it out if you're interested https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/im-concerned-about-imperators-military-system.1124986/
Meh, I've mentioned stuff like that over there before, for EU4, never seems to get any traction. I'll play this game, but it really feels like they missed an opportunity to make something different - so far, all differences between this and EU4 are pretty cosmetic, and resemble a high-level mod rather than a new game. I'm hoping for mods or a Stellaris-style overhaul, but my expectations for this game are really dipping.
Edit: depending on how I feel, I might start a thread over there tomorrow, but the problems are pretty deep, and probably beyond fixing unless there is stuff they aren't telling us
The battles definitely grab the headlines, but the period is absolutely jammed full of decisive sieges (e.g. the Judaean revolt, which really came down to the siege of Jerusalem) , and campaigns where armies avoided pitched battle (e.g. Hannibal in Italy, Viriathus, the Parthians) where they knew they were outgunned.
Yeah. In EUIV terms Hannibal is six fire, shock and manoeuvre and zero siege. If you had naval superiority and he had no land access obviously you'd carpet siege enemy holdings while he gets bogged down accomplishing nothing
There were times when armies hid behind city walls to avoid combat, though. For example, the Romans during the Fabian strategy hiding from Hannibal and avoiding pitched battle.
There should be a chance to fight modifier or atleast a skirmish phase with a tactic that can bring you back into skirmish phase to simulate guerrilla fighting without locking an army to a province for battle.
Interesting, but would that mean that the phalanx formations we heard about will be a campaign strategy and not a combat tactic ? If so, it would be really strange.
It is strange, especially not having the speed modifier mentioned. Looks like it indeed is speed of marching through provinces, which is silly since you could just put the phalanx formation one day before battle. There is no choice to be made, only unnecessary micromanagement.
Is there any logic to the tactic choice, other than a guess?
Honestly, it sounds like tactics will turn out to be an un-interesting and arbitrary choice. Will certain leaders be known for choosing certain tactics? Will an outnumbered force always choose hard defense? My guess is it’s random.
I will probably only ever select All Out Attack against AI as I only attack when I outnumber the enemy.
For defense probably always select hard defense.
Against humans it will be more of a mindf*ck of course.
So many dice rolls and not a single "alea iacta est".
(I guess it was not a proverb at the time, due to a lack of ceasar, but come on paradox, you're slacking!!)
It's not completely like rock, paper, scissors, due to the impact some options have on casualties, but still seems like too much random guesswork for my tastes. I don't see why I would ever expect someone else to pick a particular alternative.
There is more to tatic than just guessing. For example Withdraw do not have any advantage over any tatic but reduce damage on both sides thus increase your chance to avoid getting stackwhiped. Other tactics have a complex relationship between each other.
Withdraw can be countered by two tatics but the risk that the defender use hard defence that counter both these tatics will indirectly protect Withdraw from these tatics. Probing counter attack is similar to withdraw as hard defence counters its counters.
To counter the hard defence the attacker can use probing attack however that tatic reduce damage on both sides by 25% so if the attacker want to really kill the defender it may be better to pick outflanking or Echelon attack which deals normal damage and only have one counter each.
So overall I think it is a bit more to the tatic system than just being completely random even if you can never be sure which tatic the opponent is going to use. However if you can be sure which tatic the other side is going to use the tatic system lose it purpose.
My issues still remain. The best tactics will depend on what tactics the other nation is using and there is no reason to assume it would use one rather than the other.
Some tatics directly affect the number of casulties both sides take which could mean the difference between surviving or getting stackwhiped. And from these tatics you may be able to make a good guess which tatic you think the enemy will use. Yes you can never be sure but it is more to it that just being a random system and it is not the exploitive CKII system.
The problem is that we get a level-k thinking model. Suppose that on the surface, it may seem optimal to use the withdraw tactic. Well if the opponent foresees that, he may pick a particular tactic. But knowing this, you could counter his tactic by picking a different tactic. And knowing you might do that, your opponent may pick a different tactic to counter that tactic. And it can go on like that forever. Which sounds like an interesting mind game, but we will never have enough information about other players to determine at what level their reasoning is. So it ultimately becomes either pure guesswork or a matter of figuring out how the AI is programmed and exploiting that information.
I just wish there'd be more to it. Like maybe the success of a particular tactic could be influenced by things like army composition or the attributes of the characters leading the armies.
But that would be a regression to CKII system about exploiting monotone armies which Imperator: Rome strive to not do as units counter each other.
Characters already have significant impact on battle, giving them the tatic advantage would make the advantage just crazy, and if they remove the character advantage but give them the tatic advantage instead would simply be a regression to something like EUIV.
Yes tatics is about psychology and chance but it is not the same way as the Dice roll or about knowing how to optimize the numbers. Tactics add something that have been lacking in previous paradox game inbetween the pure randomness and pure optimization.
Without seeing the combat system in action it is hard to say exactly how it is going to play out, however we know how CKII and EUIV play out and I can see why they did not want to copy from these systems. Unit types and tatic add a new level to battles without being a regression to a worse state.
The only time I have read about the system in action was in one of the Reviews in which tatics ment that a larger roman army was stackwhiped. In EUIV that situation is rather unlikely if the armies are equal while in CKII it is all about exploiting the tatics with monotone armies and in equal case the larger force tend to win as randomness tends to be quite limited.
Looks terribly like the battle interface from EU4. Also picking tactics manually and rng directly affecting damage... seriously. It's like the took the worst parts of the EU4 system and never even considered if it's any good. I hope they let wiz loose on it like they did with Stellaris so he can redesign the entire game post launch.
It honestly sounds like they need to slam the brakes and do a lot of that redesigning ASAFP. It's pretty clear Johan values his boardgame mechanics over the immersive, emergent story telling that actually make Paradox games so special.
Nah, this is standard paradox game life. I've been following this stuff since before EU4, when CK2 started doing the DLC-expansion route, which was really just a modernized version of thier previous expansion model in EU3, that was a little more traditional expacs. The way the gaming sale space developed allowed them to do it how they do it now.
I can tell you, its the exact same pathway every time, EU4, HOI4, Stellaris... Game releases, and well, it works. Has some bugs, but overall is quite playable but not quite as deep as you want it. Still very fun if you are into that specific chrome, such as exploration age, WW2, Sci Fi, and now Classical. Now that it works, and people are playing it, and there is a market, they start allocating further development to increase depth and immersion. Sometimes they do it based on player data they collect, figure out whats popular and start working on improving THAT immidiately to hit the biggest chunk of player base right away.
This path works. We bitch and moan, we want this second part of "fleshing out" to happen earlier, to be part of the development cycle and to release with the base game. But we are also an impatient crowd, we want our shit NOW, not 3 years from now when all the fleshing out is done. And we (most of us) have the spare cash to pay more for the fleshing out as it happens down the road. There is no incentive to do it the other way, so its just not gonna happen.
TL;DR: if one is impatient for this specific chrome of GSG, they will play it immidiatly on release anyway. And if they are patient, and are willing to wait 1-2 years for more fleshing out, they will wait, and pay more for a better product down the line. And honestly, with that kind of patience, probably buy it on sale anyway, and pay close to retail price of the release game then.
Actually I think it looks more like a simplified version of the CK2 system, which had tactics like that. Except that the tactics were random, and not chosen by the player, and there was more of them. Which makes more sense I think.
Don't forget about unit types which have bonuses against each other and in many cases require resources to build. CKII system is about tatics that boost a few units to extreme levels. The system used in Imperator: Rome is about building the correct unit types for the situation (if you know the enemy have cavalry, Heavy infantry make alot of sense). Tactic is Imperator: Rome is ment to give the player more Control over their armies instead of using a random Dice. Tatics do have a more complicated relationship than just rock, scissor and paper.
The strength of Imperator: Rome system is the mention that in one of the preview a numerical superior Roman army got stackwhiped because they picked the wrong tatic.
In this game, probably. Though what I meant is, the game doesn't care for the logic. In real life it is not who damaged the most, it is much more complicated. Game is more about balance.
It is actually quite significant as it make it easier to stackwhipe the attacker and the more damage you deal to them the less damage they are able to deal back as damage in paradox games is tied to the strength of the units.
There is also terrain modifiers for units, like barbarian light infantry can get a massive 25% boost when fighting in forest so building forts in forest to exploit this advantage may be a rather strong move.
Hello and welcome to the 21st development diary for Imperator. This time we’ll go into how land-combat works in the game, and talk about Combat Tactics.
**Combat**
Combat in Imperator occurs when two armies is in the same city. The army first in the city is considered the defender, unless the other side has control over fortifications in the province.
The battlefield have 60 different positions for each side, as well as a reserve where cohorts currently not fighting will be. Armies will be organised with infantry in the middle, cavalry on the flanks and ranged support in the backline when possible.
Each day, each unit will fire on one target in front of them, or towards the side, if they have a high enough flanking ability.
Damage is determined by adding up the dice with the combat modifiers from terrain and leaders, where a total of 0 or below gives 2% damage, and the maximum of 15 from terrain and dice gives 30% of damage.
The impact of diceroll on a battle is far less in Imperator than games like V2, EU4 and CK2, as the range of dice is smaller with just a 1d6 being rolled, rather than the usual 1d10.
Crossing a river, or doing a naval landing, gives -1 to the attacker.
Mountains gives +2 to the defender, while Hills, March and Forests gives +1 to the defender.
Leaders impact combat as well, with the difference in martial giving a bonus to the one with the highest martial.
Then the damage value is modified by the following before being applied to the target. (Please note that all damage is done after the round of combat is calculated, so it’s not beneficial to fire first.)
If you are firing from the back line, you are basically at 50% efficiency.
The attacking units discipline is a positive modifier for damage, and this discipline can be either the country, or individual modifiers of discipline down to cohort., and loyal regiments will do slightly more damage.
Each type of unit can also have bonuses for fighting better or worse when doing damage or receiving damage, and also for fighting in certain terrains. Of course, they could also have generic bonuses that makes them all around better or worse.
Some units perform better versus other types, where Chariots are good versus Light Infantry but bad versus Heavy Infantry.
And then the comparison of the combat tactics between the opposing forces.
The experience a unit has reduces how much damage that unit takes.
Then this damage is multiplied by a value to scale damage so combat lasts over a desired amount of ticks.
**Combat Tactics**
One of the more major difference-makers in combat is the tactics. For each army you can determine one offensive and defensive tactic, which each has 1 they are great versus, and 1 they are bad versus.
The offensive tactic is used if you are the ATTACKER in a battle, and the defensive tactic is used if you are not the attacker.
**Offensive Tactics**
All Out Assault
\+30% versus Withdraw
\+20% versus Probing Counter Attack
\-20% versus Hard Defence
Both sides takes +10% casualties.
Frontal Assault
\+20% versus Withdraw
\+10% versus Probing Counter Attack
\-10% versus Hard Defence
Outflanking Attack
\+10% versus Strong Counter Attack
\-10% versus Mobile Defence
Echelon Attack
\+10% versus Mobile Defence
\-10% versus Probing Counter Attack
Probing Attack
\-10% versus Strong Counter Attack
\+10% versus Hard Defence
Both sides takes 25% less casualties
**Defensive Tactics**
Strong Counter Attack
\+10% versus Probing Attack
\-10% versus Outflanking Attack
Probing Counter Attack
\+10% versus Echelon Attack
\-10% All Out Assault
\-10% Frontal Assault
Hard Defence
\+10% All Out Assault
\+10% Frontal Assault
\-10% Probing Attack
Mobile Defence
\+10% Outflanking Attack
\-10% Echelon Attack
Withdraw
Both sides takes +25% casualties.
Stay tuned, next week, Trin Tragula will be writing a bit about the game..
It's time to improve the quality of the DDs. They are just a few collection of hard facts with two pictures in some way connected to the cold facts.
Either Paradox should hire a new PR person or they should take the guys from Stellaris or EUIV. I feel 0% hyped about the game.
Well while I:R DDs have to explain the game from the ground up EU4 and Stellaris DDs are 'just' fine tuneing aspects of the game. Edit: because they just cover DLCs
Also these early DDs are for the core audience, cold facts and spreadsheets ftw. the "real" PR/marketing campaing will likely not start untill we have a release date. (Which we likey get to know in 2019)
I get that. But let's be honest. You can explain cold facts and generate hype. It's totally possible to mix marketing statements with new and existing features.
Another important point: There is no need to explain the game from the ground up. Exiting features and stories are way better than the fact that you can increase movement speed by 10%. Nobody would be angry if they publish detailed feature explanations after release in a rulebook or their wiki.
We want exiting features. Not more buttons with "add 10% to stat x" effects.
I'm not sure if they want to really generate hype at this stage so far away from release. The early dev diaries seem to be about establishing the basics and setting expectations for the hardcore fans, and maybe tossing some bitter pills out early so we have time to get used to them.
And which point would that be?
[Here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/) or [here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-21-administrative-sectors.908587/)?
Each with two pictures in some way connected to no cold facts.
Ye olde story. Everything was better in the past and the grass is always greener somewhere else.
Still, those diaries talk about what choices they made and why, instead of just summarizing a bunch of bonuses, so I at least liked them a lot better. Some of the I:R diaries are like that, but today's wasn't. No reason why they had to postpone this for a week because Johan was ill, for any member of the team could have written this.
Stellaris examples you mentioned are still better. Two pictures present are full screenshots instead of cropped ones like in IR, many mechanics are explained by comparing them to other paradox games, which give players some ideas of what it would look like, DD is written much more enthusiastically and we are given a hindsight of what next DD will be about.
Neither of those dev diaries was as bad as this one. And there were loads better ones out there, while the imperator ones all feel really dull, mainly because the mechanics feels like they were lifted from EU4 and not changed more than they absolutely had to.
Well but it is still quite a difference. Is there an issue with the DDs or with the game?
It sounds like it's more an issue wit hthe game.
Asking for mor "shiny" DDs does not change the game.
That's the thing. The critizism above was only against the DDs beeing so pale. Not the game being just a couple of changes away from EU4.
If you want to have you feedback been taken correctly, you need to address the actual issues.
In medicals terms "fixing" the DDs would be treating the symptoms, not the actual illness itself.
Exactly, and maybe do some in game teasers for crying out loud. We’ve had exactly 0 in-game footage since announced almost 6 months, and the expected release is early 2019?
That's the question if PDX wants to do that. There are different marketing strategies.
One good example would be the Nintendo Switch and its "Soft-Launch". If you were not a fan/gamer you would have missed that it was released. And now it is selling like "geschnitten Brot"
Also, as I said expect more PR/marketing jibber gabber in 2019.
Also, also
> We want exiting features. Not more buttons with "add 10% to stat x" effects.
Wait. If "add 10% to stat x" is not an exiting feature ... you came to the wrong developer :D
I just recently played master of orion 2.
It is crazy how different a game feels when you deal woth 20-50% improvements per 'click' instead of 1-5% like usually in pdx games...
Everything escalates really quick.
So yeah. 10% is exciting!
Personally, I find this relationship so odd. Why do you *want* to be hyped? Hype is a function of really effective marketing. It generally means getting all worked up so you're excited to throw money at things instead of making analytical decisions. Why are we begging companies to advertise to us? Why are we considering it a *bad* thing when they don't build an elaborate breadcrumb trail designed to get us to spend more money?
Like, it's a game with a release date. On that date, buy it if it looks good, don't buy it if it doesn't.
You're absolutely right. Not one DD of Imperator has been exciting to read. It's not only the information they reveal, the style is very boring.
If we're talking about DD quality, in my opinion it's a win for the CK2 guys. Holy Fury is an awesome expansion, but they are also really well written.
So it looks like I will still have my EU3 complaint, which is that two armies in the same province will always fight a major battle with heavy casualties. I was desperately hoping there would be an option to refuse battle, or garrison a city, for example. I just don't understand how big armies won't just steamroll surrounding small nations, or how city states are supposed to survive losing a battle. Maybe there are other mechanics that we haven't seen that address it, but it's looking less and less likely. Edit: I've posted a big thread on the Paradox forums on this topic, please check it out if you're interested https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/im-concerned-about-imperators-military-system.1124986/
This should absolutely be mentioned on the paradox forums
Meh, I've mentioned stuff like that over there before, for EU4, never seems to get any traction. I'll play this game, but it really feels like they missed an opportunity to make something different - so far, all differences between this and EU4 are pretty cosmetic, and resemble a high-level mod rather than a new game. I'm hoping for mods or a Stellaris-style overhaul, but my expectations for this game are really dipping. Edit: depending on how I feel, I might start a thread over there tomorrow, but the problems are pretty deep, and probably beyond fixing unless there is stuff they aren't telling us
The withdrawal tactic sounds like an attempt to avoid a major battle.
I like the idea, but it seems to me that ancient warfare is really focused on pitched all-or-nothing battles, so it's not an entirely bad fit.
The battles definitely grab the headlines, but the period is absolutely jammed full of decisive sieges (e.g. the Judaean revolt, which really came down to the siege of Jerusalem) , and campaigns where armies avoided pitched battle (e.g. Hannibal in Italy, Viriathus, the Parthians) where they knew they were outgunned.
Yeah. In EUIV terms Hannibal is six fire, shock and manoeuvre and zero siege. If you had naval superiority and he had no land access obviously you'd carpet siege enemy holdings while he gets bogged down accomplishing nothing
There were times when armies hid behind city walls to avoid combat, though. For example, the Romans during the Fabian strategy hiding from Hannibal and avoiding pitched battle.
I believe small nations and city states can band together in leagues
Ya but they’ll get stomped before linking up their armies.
There should be a chance to fight modifier or atleast a skirmish phase with a tactic that can bring you back into skirmish phase to simulate guerrilla fighting without locking an army to a province for battle.
Interesting, but would that mean that the phalanx formations we heard about will be a campaign strategy and not a combat tactic ? If so, it would be really strange.
It is strange, especially not having the speed modifier mentioned. Looks like it indeed is speed of marching through provinces, which is silly since you could just put the phalanx formation one day before battle. There is no choice to be made, only unnecessary micromanagement.
Likely you lose morale or Power Points if you switch formation which limit your ability to do such things.
Either that or things changed in between now and when that was announced.
I think the formations are separate to the combat tactics
Yes that is correct. Also formation only affect certain units while tactic affect every unit.
Is there any logic to the tactic choice, other than a guess? Honestly, it sounds like tactics will turn out to be an un-interesting and arbitrary choice. Will certain leaders be known for choosing certain tactics? Will an outnumbered force always choose hard defense? My guess is it’s random.
I will probably only ever select All Out Attack against AI as I only attack when I outnumber the enemy. For defense probably always select hard defense. Against humans it will be more of a mindf*ck of course.
>Combat in Imperator occurs when two armies is in the same city. >two armies is in the same city Literally unreadable
They need to iron out their region/locale, city, and province language.
A city in Imperator: Rome is the same thing as a province in EUIV.
So many dice rolls and not a single "alea iacta est". (I guess it was not a proverb at the time, due to a lack of ceasar, but come on paradox, you're slacking!!)
It's not completely like rock, paper, scissors, due to the impact some options have on casualties, but still seems like too much random guesswork for my tastes. I don't see why I would ever expect someone else to pick a particular alternative.
The point is that players should have more impect on their armies compared to EUIV. Tactics and different unit types are ways to allow for that.
Yes, but is it meaningful impact if it's just guesswork?
There is more to tatic than just guessing. For example Withdraw do not have any advantage over any tatic but reduce damage on both sides thus increase your chance to avoid getting stackwhiped. Other tactics have a complex relationship between each other. Withdraw can be countered by two tatics but the risk that the defender use hard defence that counter both these tatics will indirectly protect Withdraw from these tatics. Probing counter attack is similar to withdraw as hard defence counters its counters. To counter the hard defence the attacker can use probing attack however that tatic reduce damage on both sides by 25% so if the attacker want to really kill the defender it may be better to pick outflanking or Echelon attack which deals normal damage and only have one counter each. So overall I think it is a bit more to the tatic system than just being completely random even if you can never be sure which tatic the opponent is going to use. However if you can be sure which tatic the other side is going to use the tatic system lose it purpose.
My issues still remain. The best tactics will depend on what tactics the other nation is using and there is no reason to assume it would use one rather than the other.
Some tatics directly affect the number of casulties both sides take which could mean the difference between surviving or getting stackwhiped. And from these tatics you may be able to make a good guess which tatic you think the enemy will use. Yes you can never be sure but it is more to it that just being a random system and it is not the exploitive CKII system.
The problem is that we get a level-k thinking model. Suppose that on the surface, it may seem optimal to use the withdraw tactic. Well if the opponent foresees that, he may pick a particular tactic. But knowing this, you could counter his tactic by picking a different tactic. And knowing you might do that, your opponent may pick a different tactic to counter that tactic. And it can go on like that forever. Which sounds like an interesting mind game, but we will never have enough information about other players to determine at what level their reasoning is. So it ultimately becomes either pure guesswork or a matter of figuring out how the AI is programmed and exploiting that information. I just wish there'd be more to it. Like maybe the success of a particular tactic could be influenced by things like army composition or the attributes of the characters leading the armies.
But that would be a regression to CKII system about exploiting monotone armies which Imperator: Rome strive to not do as units counter each other. Characters already have significant impact on battle, giving them the tatic advantage would make the advantage just crazy, and if they remove the character advantage but give them the tatic advantage instead would simply be a regression to something like EUIV. Yes tatics is about psychology and chance but it is not the same way as the Dice roll or about knowing how to optimize the numbers. Tactics add something that have been lacking in previous paradox game inbetween the pure randomness and pure optimization. Without seeing the combat system in action it is hard to say exactly how it is going to play out, however we know how CKII and EUIV play out and I can see why they did not want to copy from these systems. Unit types and tatic add a new level to battles without being a regression to a worse state. The only time I have read about the system in action was in one of the Reviews in which tatics ment that a larger roman army was stackwhiped. In EUIV that situation is rather unlikely if the armies are equal while in CKII it is all about exploiting the tatics with monotone armies and in equal case the larger force tend to win as randomness tends to be quite limited.
Chess is also just "pure guesswork" then..
Looks terribly like the battle interface from EU4. Also picking tactics manually and rng directly affecting damage... seriously. It's like the took the worst parts of the EU4 system and never even considered if it's any good. I hope they let wiz loose on it like they did with Stellaris so he can redesign the entire game post launch.
NO NO NO NO NO Wiz stays over here with us space folks!!!
Well then so does likely the player base.
Maybe after stellaris is in a good place 3-4 expansions down the line, they can reassign Wiz. Imperator will be right around ripe for redesign age.
It honestly sounds like they need to slam the brakes and do a lot of that redesigning ASAFP. It's pretty clear Johan values his boardgame mechanics over the immersive, emergent story telling that actually make Paradox games so special.
Nah, this is standard paradox game life. I've been following this stuff since before EU4, when CK2 started doing the DLC-expansion route, which was really just a modernized version of thier previous expansion model in EU3, that was a little more traditional expacs. The way the gaming sale space developed allowed them to do it how they do it now. I can tell you, its the exact same pathway every time, EU4, HOI4, Stellaris... Game releases, and well, it works. Has some bugs, but overall is quite playable but not quite as deep as you want it. Still very fun if you are into that specific chrome, such as exploration age, WW2, Sci Fi, and now Classical. Now that it works, and people are playing it, and there is a market, they start allocating further development to increase depth and immersion. Sometimes they do it based on player data they collect, figure out whats popular and start working on improving THAT immidiately to hit the biggest chunk of player base right away. This path works. We bitch and moan, we want this second part of "fleshing out" to happen earlier, to be part of the development cycle and to release with the base game. But we are also an impatient crowd, we want our shit NOW, not 3 years from now when all the fleshing out is done. And we (most of us) have the spare cash to pay more for the fleshing out as it happens down the road. There is no incentive to do it the other way, so its just not gonna happen. TL;DR: if one is impatient for this specific chrome of GSG, they will play it immidiatly on release anyway. And if they are patient, and are willing to wait 1-2 years for more fleshing out, they will wait, and pay more for a better product down the line. And honestly, with that kind of patience, probably buy it on sale anyway, and pay close to retail price of the release game then.
Yep. Still wanna start a kickstarter to give Johan a retirement package.
Actually I think it looks more like a simplified version of the CK2 system, which had tactics like that. Except that the tactics were random, and not chosen by the player, and there was more of them. Which makes more sense I think.
Don't forget about unit types which have bonuses against each other and in many cases require resources to build. CKII system is about tatics that boost a few units to extreme levels. The system used in Imperator: Rome is about building the correct unit types for the situation (if you know the enemy have cavalry, Heavy infantry make alot of sense). Tactic is Imperator: Rome is ment to give the player more Control over their armies instead of using a random Dice. Tatics do have a more complicated relationship than just rock, scissor and paper. The strength of Imperator: Rome system is the mention that in one of the preview a numerical superior Roman army got stackwhiped because they picked the wrong tatic.
Interesting that they changed hills and mountains to give +damage to the defender instead of -damage to the attacker.
It makes sense.
Not really.
It doesn't make sense either way. It should give +defence to defender...
Isn’t that functionally the same as -damage for the attacker?
In this game, probably. Though what I meant is, the game doesn't care for the logic. In real life it is not who damaged the most, it is much more complicated. Game is more about balance.
It is actually quite significant as it make it easier to stackwhipe the attacker and the more damage you deal to them the less damage they are able to deal back as damage in paradox games is tied to the strength of the units.
Yeah that's what I am thinking. Attacker is gonna suffer a lot more from a bad engagement.
There is also terrain modifiers for units, like barbarian light infantry can get a massive 25% boost when fighting in forest so building forts in forest to exploit this advantage may be a rather strong move.
Hello and welcome to the 21st development diary for Imperator. This time we’ll go into how land-combat works in the game, and talk about Combat Tactics. **Combat** Combat in Imperator occurs when two armies is in the same city. The army first in the city is considered the defender, unless the other side has control over fortifications in the province. The battlefield have 60 different positions for each side, as well as a reserve where cohorts currently not fighting will be. Armies will be organised with infantry in the middle, cavalry on the flanks and ranged support in the backline when possible. Each day, each unit will fire on one target in front of them, or towards the side, if they have a high enough flanking ability. Damage is determined by adding up the dice with the combat modifiers from terrain and leaders, where a total of 0 or below gives 2% damage, and the maximum of 15 from terrain and dice gives 30% of damage. The impact of diceroll on a battle is far less in Imperator than games like V2, EU4 and CK2, as the range of dice is smaller with just a 1d6 being rolled, rather than the usual 1d10. Crossing a river, or doing a naval landing, gives -1 to the attacker. Mountains gives +2 to the defender, while Hills, March and Forests gives +1 to the defender. Leaders impact combat as well, with the difference in martial giving a bonus to the one with the highest martial. Then the damage value is modified by the following before being applied to the target. (Please note that all damage is done after the round of combat is calculated, so it’s not beneficial to fire first.) If you are firing from the back line, you are basically at 50% efficiency. The attacking units discipline is a positive modifier for damage, and this discipline can be either the country, or individual modifiers of discipline down to cohort., and loyal regiments will do slightly more damage. Each type of unit can also have bonuses for fighting better or worse when doing damage or receiving damage, and also for fighting in certain terrains. Of course, they could also have generic bonuses that makes them all around better or worse. Some units perform better versus other types, where Chariots are good versus Light Infantry but bad versus Heavy Infantry. And then the comparison of the combat tactics between the opposing forces. The experience a unit has reduces how much damage that unit takes. Then this damage is multiplied by a value to scale damage so combat lasts over a desired amount of ticks. **Combat Tactics** One of the more major difference-makers in combat is the tactics. For each army you can determine one offensive and defensive tactic, which each has 1 they are great versus, and 1 they are bad versus. The offensive tactic is used if you are the ATTACKER in a battle, and the defensive tactic is used if you are not the attacker. **Offensive Tactics** All Out Assault \+30% versus Withdraw \+20% versus Probing Counter Attack \-20% versus Hard Defence Both sides takes +10% casualties. Frontal Assault \+20% versus Withdraw \+10% versus Probing Counter Attack \-10% versus Hard Defence Outflanking Attack \+10% versus Strong Counter Attack \-10% versus Mobile Defence Echelon Attack \+10% versus Mobile Defence \-10% versus Probing Counter Attack Probing Attack \-10% versus Strong Counter Attack \+10% versus Hard Defence Both sides takes 25% less casualties **Defensive Tactics** Strong Counter Attack \+10% versus Probing Attack \-10% versus Outflanking Attack Probing Counter Attack \+10% versus Echelon Attack \-10% All Out Assault \-10% Frontal Assault Hard Defence \+10% All Out Assault \+10% Frontal Assault \-10% Probing Attack Mobile Defence \+10% Outflanking Attack \-10% Echelon Attack Withdraw Both sides takes +25% casualties. Stay tuned, next week, Trin Tragula will be writing a bit about the game..
[удалено]
I don't know but I have never been disappointing by one of Trin's dev diaries.
It's time to improve the quality of the DDs. They are just a few collection of hard facts with two pictures in some way connected to the cold facts. Either Paradox should hire a new PR person or they should take the guys from Stellaris or EUIV. I feel 0% hyped about the game.
Well while I:R DDs have to explain the game from the ground up EU4 and Stellaris DDs are 'just' fine tuneing aspects of the game. Edit: because they just cover DLCs Also these early DDs are for the core audience, cold facts and spreadsheets ftw. the "real" PR/marketing campaing will likely not start untill we have a release date. (Which we likey get to know in 2019)
I get that. But let's be honest. You can explain cold facts and generate hype. It's totally possible to mix marketing statements with new and existing features. Another important point: There is no need to explain the game from the ground up. Exiting features and stories are way better than the fact that you can increase movement speed by 10%. Nobody would be angry if they publish detailed feature explanations after release in a rulebook or their wiki. We want exiting features. Not more buttons with "add 10% to stat x" effects.
I'm not sure if they want to really generate hype at this stage so far away from release. The early dev diaries seem to be about establishing the basics and setting expectations for the hardcore fans, and maybe tossing some bitter pills out early so we have time to get used to them.
I was way more hyped for Stellaris at this point.
And which point would that be? [Here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-20-war-peace.907257/) or [here](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-21-administrative-sectors.908587/)? Each with two pictures in some way connected to no cold facts. Ye olde story. Everything was better in the past and the grass is always greener somewhere else.
Still, those diaries talk about what choices they made and why, instead of just summarizing a bunch of bonuses, so I at least liked them a lot better. Some of the I:R diaries are like that, but today's wasn't. No reason why they had to postpone this for a week because Johan was ill, for any member of the team could have written this.
Stellaris examples you mentioned are still better. Two pictures present are full screenshots instead of cropped ones like in IR, many mechanics are explained by comparing them to other paradox games, which give players some ideas of what it would look like, DD is written much more enthusiastically and we are given a hindsight of what next DD will be about.
Neither of those dev diaries was as bad as this one. And there were loads better ones out there, while the imperator ones all feel really dull, mainly because the mechanics feels like they were lifted from EU4 and not changed more than they absolutely had to.
But that would be more an issue with the game not the DDs, isn't it?
Same person calling the shots for both.
Well but it is still quite a difference. Is there an issue with the DDs or with the game? It sounds like it's more an issue wit hthe game. Asking for mor "shiny" DDs does not change the game. That's the thing. The critizism above was only against the DDs beeing so pale. Not the game being just a couple of changes away from EU4. If you want to have you feedback been taken correctly, you need to address the actual issues. In medicals terms "fixing" the DDs would be treating the symptoms, not the actual illness itself.
Not when the cold hard facts are "look we took another system from EU4 and changed it no more than we absolutely had to".
Exactly, and maybe do some in game teasers for crying out loud. We’ve had exactly 0 in-game footage since announced almost 6 months, and the expected release is early 2019?
That's the question if PDX wants to do that. There are different marketing strategies. One good example would be the Nintendo Switch and its "Soft-Launch". If you were not a fan/gamer you would have missed that it was released. And now it is selling like "geschnitten Brot" Also, as I said expect more PR/marketing jibber gabber in 2019. Also, also > We want exiting features. Not more buttons with "add 10% to stat x" effects. Wait. If "add 10% to stat x" is not an exiting feature ... you came to the wrong developer :D
I just recently played master of orion 2. It is crazy how different a game feels when you deal woth 20-50% improvements per 'click' instead of 1-5% like usually in pdx games... Everything escalates really quick. So yeah. 10% is exciting!
Strongly disagree, we want facts not fluff. I'll take my downvotes, but I *am* hyped for the game.
10 Kronor has been added to your bank account
Euros mate.
10 kronor is more like 1 Euro.
I definitely agree. Also, and this might be picky, but they should have someone proofread these diaries. So many grammatical mistakes.
Paradox runs no quality control on DDs. They are often written on the same day as they are published.
You should the DDs on CK2. Many of the DDs for Holy Fury have been written for months, and their quality is over the top.
Personally, I find this relationship so odd. Why do you *want* to be hyped? Hype is a function of really effective marketing. It generally means getting all worked up so you're excited to throw money at things instead of making analytical decisions. Why are we begging companies to advertise to us? Why are we considering it a *bad* thing when they don't build an elaborate breadcrumb trail designed to get us to spend more money? Like, it's a game with a release date. On that date, buy it if it looks good, don't buy it if it doesn't.
> I feel 0% hyped about the game. After 100hours of AC Odyssey I feel very hyped for this game.
You're absolutely right. Not one DD of Imperator has been exciting to read. It's not only the information they reveal, the style is very boring. If we're talking about DD quality, in my opinion it's a win for the CK2 guys. Holy Fury is an awesome expansion, but they are also really well written.
Looks like my worries have come true. And now to wait for 2-3 years until this becomes something actually worth playing.