Temgesic
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:08 pm

Hello fellow wargamers!

Yesterday we the masses had the oppurtunity to buy and play Paradox new release Imperator: Rome.
Which is basically the "complete" version of Europa Universalis: Rome.

From what i have seen from the dev diaries and from Rome, these two games albeit encompassing
the same period in history plays out very differently, the other is turn based and the other is in real-time.

How do you folks take a stand between these two games? Will you buy them both or just one of them?

In the Imperator case i can understand why people kind off wait a little bit, because we all know Paradox
they will surley in just a few weeks start pumping out DLC´s by the hundreds like the cases of CK2 and EUIV.

So maybe Imperator: Rome will be for the casual wargamer while we who wants a little deeper complex
methods of playing will go for FoG: Empires. I have had a chance to play Imperator just for a few a hours
and so far it is CK2 under the antiquity, starting with the Diadochi wars. But when the modders will get
started that´s where the game will come alive for sure!

Im impatiently waiting for the release of Field of Glory: Empires for now! But to have two games out that is based in this time period, that doesn´t happen really often.
Will Field of Glory be moddable by any chance? Think i read that somewhere but can´t remember.

Well give me your opinions people! :dada:

Taillebois
General
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:29 pm

Well I've still got lots of AJE to play. And I have EU:Rome but have barely touched it.

I'll certainly hold out for a while as my recent experience of buying new games has been bad (with the exception of Armored Brigade which been fine for me from the start).

It may well be that my ageing body and computers can't cope with the PC requirements anyway.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1516
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:41 pm

I watched some Imperator: Rome on YouTube and was not impressed. I:R doesn't offer anything new. The basic inscrutable Paradox battle system is unchanged. Ageod has a new combat system in Empires that allows for tactical innovation and can plug in to FOG2. Also, I bought CK2 and got a score well over 100k the very first time I played it. Paradox swamps the player with a crapload of options that turns a RTS game into a snail's crawl. If you like clicking dozens of messages every few seconds, then I:R seems like it will have that feature.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
nlancier
Lieutenant
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:02 am
Location: İstanbul
Contact: Website

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:56 pm

Wont buy Imperator: Rome and waiting for FOG:E - pbem with 6 players. PBeM rulez anyway! :gardavou:
Temgesic wrote:Hello fellow wargamers!


From what i have seen from the dev diaries and from Rome, these two games albeit encompassing
the same period in history plays out very differently, the other is turn based and the other is in real-time.

How do you folks take a stand between these two games? Will you buy them both or just one of them?

Well give me your opinions people! :dada:
PBeM Rulez - Vive L'Empereur!

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:29 pm

I just finished ten hours with Imperator and I have gone back to playing Empires (beta tester). Paradox have missed the mark with this one. Imperator lacks the in-depth intrigue and skull-duggery of CKII and doesn't have the depth of EU4. It feels strangely flat. Empires is a much better game in almost every aspect and it is still in beta. Here's my summary comparison:


1) Tactical combat: Empires blows the other game away. More depth, historical realism, it's beautiful to look at, and yet doesn't take long to play out. Much more nuanced... planning ahead really pays off. Pdx battles are just a race to get the biggest stack into battle the quickest.

2) Historical realism and attention to detail: want Alexander's silver shields? Macedonian phalanxes? Seleucid war elephants? Cataphracts? Nomad steppe horse archers? The attention to detail and historical accuracy is everything you've come to expect from ageod and the units look gorgeous in the tactical battles. Pdx will give you 'heavy infantry' with just cosmetic differences between Roman legions and Seleucid phalanxes.

3) Trade and economy: Pdx has lots of micromanagement with trade and pops. In Empires trade takes place automatically, but the player has a lot of control with his building choices and population management.

4) Simulation of the rise and fall of empires. Empires has a unique culture/decadence system that does a beautiful job of elegantly simulating these historical realities. The player is forced to make tough choices over the direction he wants to take his nation. Pdx just have the usual +/- stability hits... yawn.

5) Diplomacy: here is where Empires has room to grow. Diplomacy works just fine but their is potential to make it more sophisticated.

6) Characters: this is where I thought Imperator would shine but actually the well-developed characters in the game don't actually have a lot to do. I would like to see Empires take onboard more character development in the future.

Overall, Empires is a more realistic, authentic, original and fascinating take on antiquity. It manages to be simple to get into but difficult to master. Most of all it is addictive as hell and lots of fun. Multiplayer is awesome with ageod's characteristic asynchronous wego turn-based system.


PS I have played paradox and ageod games for years so this analysis comes with a lot of experience. Nobody is paying me to make these comments. They are sincerely from my personal experience of hundreds of hours spent enjoying these games.

Temgesic
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:23 pm

nlancier wrote:Wont buy Imperator: Rome and waiting for FOG:E - pbem with 6 players. PBeM rulez anyway! :gardavou:
Temgesic wrote:Hello fellow wargamers!


From what i have seen from the dev diaries and from Rome, these two games albeit encompassing
the same period in history plays out very differently, the other is turn based and the other is in real-time.

How do you folks take a stand between these two games? Will you buy them both or just one of them?

Well give me your opinions people! :dada:


Pbem also gets my vote! It´s a bit stressed getting 16 players all trying to synchronize and get along all at the same time.
In Pbem you can get the time to thoroughly sit down and relax and make your move :cool:

Imperator i only play singleplayer trying out different tribes/nations :dada:

Temgesic
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:47 pm

ajarnlance wrote:I just finished ten hours with Imperator and I have gone back to playing Empires (beta tester). Paradox have missed the mark with this one. Imperator lacks the in-depth intrigue and skull-duggery of CKII and doesn't have the depth of EU4. It feels strangely flat. Empires is a much better game in almost every aspect and it is still in beta. Here's my summary comparison:


1) Tactical combat: Empires blows the other game away. More depth, historical realism, it's beautiful to look at, and yet doesn't take long to play out. Much more nuanced... planning ahead really pays off. Pdx battles are just a race to get the biggest stack into battle the quickest.

2) Historical realism and attention to detail: want Alexander's silver shields? Macedonian phalanxes? Seleucid war elephants? Cataphracts? Nomad steppe horse archers? The attention to detail and historical accuracy is everything you've come to expect from ageod and the units look gorgeous in the tactical battles. Pdx will give you 'heavy infantry' with just cosmetic differences between Roman legions and Seleucid phalanxes.

3) Trade and economy: Pdx has lots of micromanagement with trade and pops. In Empires trade takes place automatically, but the player has a lot of control with his building choices and population management.

4) Simulation of the rise and fall of empires. Empires has a unique culture/decadence system that does a beautiful job of elegantly simulating these historical realities. The player is forced to make tough choices over the direction he wants to take his nation. Pdx just have the usual +/- stability hits... yawn.

5) Diplomacy: here is where Empires has room to grow. Diplomacy works just fine but their is potential to make it more sophisticated.

6) Characters: this is where I thought Imperator would shine but actually the well-developed characters in the game don't actually have a lot to do. I would like to see Empires take onboard more character development in the future.

Overall, Empires is a more realistic, authentic, original and fascinating take on antiquity. It manages to be simple to get into but difficult to master. Most of all it is addictive as hell and lots of fun. Multiplayer is awesome with ageod's characteristic asynchronous wego turn-based system.


PS I have played paradox and ageod games for years so this analysis comes with a lot of experience. Nobody is paying me to make these comments. They are sincerely from my personal experience of hundreds of hours spent enjoying these games.


Myself i have as of yet only played a few hours at most. To me Imperator for now just seems like a uphotted version of
the Europa Universalis: Rome game that they released a few years ago which was far from finished.

I haven´t had the chance to test Empires as of yet! I applied for the beta but sadly didn´t get in :/ Which disturbs me a lot since it seems to be a really great game and its only in the beta phase. So hopefully it will get more improvements a long the way, and in the future we probably will have expansions and DLC`s.

And on the DLC´s, that´s probably where Paradox is going. Just like they did with EUIV and CKII. Releasing a base game with a limited amount of features and things to do and adding and releasing more stuff as the time goes, after
a couple of years you have spent a thousand dollars on the base game and all these damn DLC´s.
So even if i dont have had the chance to play Empires yet i think it outshines Imperator on these things as you point out (1-6) and i totally agree on these points.

But the release of Empires i slowly appearing on the horizon. And i will get it as soons it gets released, because i have never been disappointed with any AGEOD game as of yet, and the historical immersion these games have is incredible. And of course you want to support the survival of the small gaming companies.

On a note that Imperator MIGHT get really buffed is where the modders come in. They have already started and adding little stuffs that should have been in the game already (being able to change your capital city for one) and other things. And im sure some modders or modding team out there has started to work on a "realistic" and more historical approach for the game. As i said Imperator: Rome is more for the "masses" out there while Empires will be more focused for the real table chair wargamer.

Is Empires gonna be moddable? Because if it is Imperator has really gotten itself some though competition.
In my view Paradox promised a lot on this game and delivered just a base platform. Which tells me they surely already have a couple of DLC´s in the making and soon to be released to make more money, i hate this trend with endless DLC´s.

Well it became a lot of text but i hope it gave some understanding on my view of both games. Im not favouring any of them at the moment, and since i haven´t played Empires at all but only read the dev diaries i can´t speak so much about it.
Happy Wargaming! :dada:

On a side note, Paradox is currently developing a patch which will be released that improves some of the things. Like adding more features like, more character interactions, improved combat mechanics, eliminating bugs, multiplayer out-of-sync fix etc etc. So its a coming...
Maybe they now Empires is on the way and are getting a little nervous people will abandon the game, haha :eyebrow:

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:51 pm

Yes. The devs have assured us that Empires will be moddable. That's a great business model they have over there at Paradox: release a half finished game and hope that modders will fix it for you. Like you say there will be a lot expansions and pay for DLC for Imperator... just to get the game where it should have been on release day. To me it's a bore. I prefer turn-based strategy games where I have meaningful actions and decisions on every turn. Empires is a much better game already and it will only get stronger before release.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25298
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:08 am

Empires is very moddable, both on data and on gameplay code an AI even. You can start small by adding new units and factions, then you can continue by adding events and then if you are willing, you can even edit or add gameplay code.

shaiba
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:27 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:27 am

Looked At The Emperor. What can I say: card the trading system, the device of the provinces, signs, guys, this is copied from Pax Romana .Yes, added chips from other games, but the basis of it is the one from 2003)
Yeah, it's bad, so sensible ideas in the Emperor is no more, one hope for modders.

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:16 pm

Pocus wrote:Empires is very moddable, both on data and on gameplay code an AI even. You can start small by adding new units and factions, then you can continue by adding events and then if you are willing, you can even edit or add gameplay code.


Which programming language did you use Pocus? C++? Also, will there be a modding guide with examples for amateurs like me? ;) Also, is the map moddable? For example, could I add more regions?

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:04 pm

This may give you some ideas as to how far you can go, its the wider guidance on modifying the underlying game system:

http://archonwiki.slitherine.com/index.php/Modding

User avatar
H Gilmer3
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:57 am
Location: United States of America

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:41 am

Imperator Rome is a game I pick up years down the road for a very steep discounted price. FoG:Empires is the type of game I pick up as soon as it releases.

I don't always do that with Ageod games! I did not buy the game on Spanish Civil War, English Civil War, And the one about the Wars of Succession.

I have bought almost immediately most of the others except AJE, but even AJE resides on my computer now. I picked up PoN immediately and I picked up Civil War 2 immediately. And I picked up To End All Wars immediately. The three I don't have actually came out when I was going through another tough couple of years with my career. So, not many expenses as it relates to computer games.

So.

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:25 pm

I don't think you will be disappointed with Empires. I am beta testing it right now and it is a lot of fun.

User avatar
marek1978
Colonel
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:31 pm
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 01, 2019 11:42 am

It seems that yet again Ageod is making more accurate and better historical game - where running a country is not only about gettin as much soldiers as fast to one location but rather ballancing few things.

The very big question is how fun would be single game ( as AI in previuos Ageod games was strugling in long games)
and how realistic and fun would be diplomacy ( that was really fascinating in Helenistic period)

What i see as a huge advantage of Imperator is beatiful map with high density of regions. If only Paradox was able to deliver supply/operational challanges it could be a beatiful war game. But still - high density of regions - that are used mainly for moving armies and grouped in biger provinces for politics/administration purposes is, for me, better than huge Empires regions.
Yearly turns and huge provinces are only way to create playable game that covers centuries but i really hope that at some point we will see DLCs that deals with shorter time period ( like Hanibal Wars or Pyrhups strugle, or Diadochi Wars) where we would see AJE mothy turns and provinces divided in smaller, operation purpused. regions.


Anyway - you have my money and full support.

User avatar
Cabbage Jack
Civilian
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 4:03 am
Location: Bozeman, MT, USA

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri May 03, 2019 2:31 am

Yeah, I would say I am super-excited for FoG: Empires out the gate, whereas the thought of buying Imperator: Rome for the skeleton of a game and then locking in hundreds of dollars of DLC for a fleshed game. Eh. I quit Paradox when HOI4 came out and I didn't buy it, just because I knew the initial investment was just the beginning.

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri May 03, 2019 6:48 pm

Paradox became complacent with Imperator. It really offers nothing new in the way of mechanics or unique concepts. Empires shines in that it introduces some unique ways of modelling, for example, decadence and the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. The level of historical detail and authenticity in Empires puts paradox to shame. Out of the box ageod have developed a much more complete and playable game.

Temgesic
Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 6:19 am

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 3:54 am

ajarnlance wrote:Paradox became complacent with Imperator. It really offers nothing new in the way of mechanics or unique concepts. Empires shines in that it introduces some unique ways of modelling, for example, decadence and the rise and fall of kingdoms and empires. The level of historical detail and authenticity in Empires puts paradox to shame. Out of the box ageod have developed a much more complete and playable game.


Gaah! Just wish i had the chance to try out FoG! This drives me crazy not being able to try it :bonk:

On the other hand, the Paradox community is in rage! Because as many a man thought and was right
it´s basically a rushed game and they let the consumers to be the beta testers! :cursing:

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 8:25 am

There is a truely wierd post by Johann

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... 94/page-33

Basically saying 'you bunch of peasants don't understand this superb game I have made for you'. Does seem they have over-done their model of a shell of a game that they then flesh out with DLC and really pushed it too far?

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 8:37 am

Yeh, I read that post by Johann too. He's just digging himself a deeper hole with his arrogance. Paradox got caught with their pants down this time. Their strategy of releasing an empty shell and then filling it with $300 of dlc is now very transparent to all their fans. Imperator has now hit the dreaded 'mostly negative' category on Steam.

Mork
Conscript
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:35 am

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 11:08 am

I do not think that Imperator is a bad game. It is a more modern version of EU:Rome Gold. I presume that many players thought they would get an EU IV or CK: 2 as these games are now.
Well, when CK 2 came out, you could not play muslims. India came later. The game has changed so much.
So, i guess they had expectancies that couldn't be fullfilled.

I personally think that i got what i expect from a paradox game.

What bothers me is that you can , for example, magically change a druidic Gaul to a hellenic Roman, just like that. Really? Why not use a mechanism where there is a gradual culture change.
And although the Romans had a tendency to send of 10 000 Romans to form a colony in the early Days ( i Think the last colony founded like this was founded around 189 BC) moving around your pops as seen fit doesn't feel right too.
It feels gamey.
And here is where they have gone wrong. A Paradox game is a Paradox game. They are complicated and difficult to manage or get into. It is part of why i play them in the first place.
But they are not supposed to feel gamey.

Speaking of, Stability. Well, they have decided to change it now, but why not in the first place? to follow a deadline?

CA learned from their Rome 2 debacle by moving the 3 kingdoms release date to the end of may.

Regarding DLC. We know how a paradox game works. Look at CK 2 or EU 4. So who really expected they would not use the same marketing technique in this game.

We will see.

Since i have not had a chance to play FOG Empires, i cannot compare the two.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 11:32 am

I gave up on Paradox some time back so I'm not the best to comment - in part I was totally fed up with their ahistorical approach, I was also disgusted at their treatment of AGEOD.

But when CK2 came out, yes there were things missing etc, but unusually for a Paradox game you could play it and have fun on day 1. I remember mucking about as some Duchy in Strathclyde with the release version and there was quite enough to keep me amused for 100 or so years. Now I liked CK1, that was a classic example of how non-functioning and odd game systems actually can generate something that was fun to play. It was no accident that CK1 spawned a lot of very good comedy AARs among the Paradox community.

If I understand the fundamentals of the IR complaints its that even this basically functioning, broadly enjoyable game isn't there?

User avatar
ajarnlance
General of the Army
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:40 pm

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Wed May 08, 2019 12:54 pm

Mork wrote:What bothers me is that you can , for example, magically change a druidic Gaul to a hellenic Roman, just like that. Really? Why not use a mechanism where there is a gradual culture change.
And although the Romans had a tendency to send of 10 000 Romans to form a colony in the early Days ( i Think the last colony founded like this was founded around 189 BC) moving around your pops as seen fit doesn't feel right too.
It feels gamey.
And here is where they have gone wrong. A Paradox game is a Paradox game. They are complicated and difficult to manage or get into. It is part of why i play them in the first place.
But they are not supposed to feel gamey.

Speaking of, Stability. Well, they have decided to change it now, but why not in the first place? to follow a deadline?

Since i have not had a chance to play FOG Empires, i cannot compare the two.


I agree. The way that paradox use mana to create everything not only feels gamey but it is a lazy way of designing a game. Empires has really interesting mechanics to model how empires rise or age and fall. The mechanics are very well thought out and do an excellent job of reproducing historical behaviour. The level of historical accuracy and detail in Empires far exceeds the 'one size fits all' paradox approach to military units and national characteristics. Of course paradox may add these details later... for a significant price tag.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25298
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: FoG:Empires vs Imperator:Rome

Fri May 10, 2019 8:59 am

I would need to find again the source, I think it was a Rumanian document I google translated, but I think it was written that an estimate of 500.000 people from the Empire migrated more or less forcefully to Dacia over a century, after Trajan conquest. Dacia has been a province which received a massive influx of people, money and infrastructure at this time. Probably linked to the vast ores reserves it had?

Not saying I like instant buttons, but it is not my task to comments on that further! Vox populi anyway, right?

Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest