Imperator Rome and Time Compression
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- This time we're dealing with the amorphous concept of Historical Time Compression (and Time Dilation) using Imperator Rome. At the risk of spoiling the video, I think the game does a decent job avoiding the problem too much, but it does fall into some pits. As far as Paradox grand strategy games go, I think this one does a decent job, even with the "pause" in support.
Let me know what you think. Or comment some random questions, I've got a Q&A planned and I'm open to stuff that goes way off topic even.
Sorry if trying to be funny was actually a terrible idea. But also you can't stop me. I am Cringe and I am free.
Also, let me know if I've missed a better term for this phenomena. I tried looking through a few things, but they just led me to Revisionism and Negationism which aren't quite applicable here.
___________
00:00 Intro
02:09 Confining an Era: Scope
05:09 Defining an Era: Tech
09:19 A Question
12:25 Defining a Ruler: Imperator
15:49 Conclusion - Ігри
Everyone asks what is Imperator and when is Imperator, but no one asks how is Imperator.
And they really should have asked that in the case of Caligula.
Probably getting assassinated
It’s bad
Well how is Imperator?
@@houndofculann1793 nonexistent sadly (or lucky?)
14:50 In German we have two terms for Empire. We have Kaiserreich, which means a country with an Kaiser(Emperor) as it’s monarch and we have Imperium, which means a state with an extensive area of influence. So we can can avoid this problem
They actually both have the same source ironically though. Empire and Emperor both derrive from Imperator after Augustus took absolute power as the Princeps. Kaiser/Kejser and Kaisereich/Kejserrige derrive from Caesar, as in the name because one of the last names of Augustus was Caesar since that was his adopted dad and Caesar would go on to become the title given to whoever was next in line to the throne. Emperor and Kaiser are essentially different words for the same thing, derived from the same origin but different parts of it that despite that ended up traveling through time to become words for the same concept in different languages. They're like twin words in a sense, but also Kaiser/Emperor never coexist in one language, it's always one or the other despite sharing the origin of Augustus. The hilarious thing of course is that our idea of a Kaiser/Emperor as a monarch is completely opposite to the way Augustus wanted to use those terms because he very carefully made sure to keep up the pretense that he wasn't a monarch.
@@hedgehog3180 Similarly, German also has two terms for prince Fürst for sovereign prince, and Prinz for the son of monarch. However, the concept for both comes from the Latin Princeps, Fürst is just translated literally while Prinz is borrowed directly.
In Polish we do something similar with Cesarstwo/Imperium.
also add "ein Reich" to that list, which translates to "an empire". for example if you have played Stellaris, all player nations would be an empires(ein Reich) even if they arent an empire(ein Kaiserreich) or an imperium.
I feel like the term imperator - meaning great conquerer - had a lot more relevance and meaning in the pre imperial times. The title was never hereditary before the Julian dynasty, and was given successful generals to honor them in their service of Rome. Publius Cornelius Scipio was given the title Imperator for his many successful campaigns, and later his more famous son was given it for defeating Hannibal and saving Rome. Sulla, Camillus, Flamininus, Corvus, Pompey Magnus, all men who earned the title fighting for Rome, and giving the meaning that the later imperial title merely makes references to. When the title was adopted into the imperial dynasty, it lost its meaning. Imperator eventually became emperor, which is more analogous the princeps. Caligula was the Imperator because he was the princeps, and he was the princeps because he was the Augustus, and he was the Augustus because he was the imperator, etc...
So, ironically, the times of imperial Rome seems to have, in my opinion, end the times of the Imperator. The real imperators - the ones who lived the definitions and earned the title - are the generals who grew the Roman borders during the Republic.
15:13
That's not entirely correct: EU3 had pushed its end date from 1793 to 1822 with its "Napoleon's Ambition" DLC. Though, that was way back in 2008, and IIRC never happened again since then, so your point is still valid to an extend.
That's right before my paradox era, so I had no idea. Interesting. That does remind me that part of the reason they probably don't do it anymore is because of all the "who tf plays to the end date anyway?" comments. Frankly, I was astounded that they expanded the French Revolution mechanics in EU4 with Emperor.
It's not that weird considering they have enabled revolution since 1710 in eu4, that is about 70% of game time
Also there was a DLC for HOI2 that pushed the end date to 1954 or something
@@hrsmp 1964, Armaggeddon DLC
@@JackNotLanternWho tf plays past 1710?
Paradox seems like they have a strong aversion to representing the period from around the birth of Jesus of Nazareth to around the death of The Prophet Muhammad. I think that might be a time period where they don't want to take stances on historical events which are core to the religious beliefs of nearly half of the world's population. Someday I how they drum up the courage and the nuance to handle it but I recognize their trepidation. would love to see things like "apostle paul sends letter to church in galatia" as paradox events but I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon lol.
Yeahhhhhhh. I can’t blame them. But on some level I feel that these games, as a media product that isn’t…quite fiction… are in a weird place because there’s history that they cannot touch due to sensitivity, but it’s not like they’re making Muhammad fanfic or making an edgy movie about Buddha. I can’t really compare this double bind to other forms of media. The true shame of is that, as you said, there are centuries of really interesting history that just get skipped over.
I’m sure there’s some incredibly bad, borderline intentionally offensive game out there like this… I mean there’s the fighting game with Jesus as a character, so… I dunno. It may just have to fall to indies to touch that era.
Some of the older Total War games are like that. I think that Rome for example does just have an event for Jesus’ birth, it will at least go up to it and Medieval II has an event for when the great schism happens where the monk dude will give an incredibly generalized explanation of it in a voice over. In those games it also doesn't really matter since they have such a specific focus on warfare that they aren't even really trying to simulate societies in any way so historical events are mostly flavor. Later games were more careful with their history though sometimes like with Attila they'd also just explicitly lean into myths and be very open about it, which might be why it's one of the best games.
Also I would love a Paradox game were early church politics and infighting was an integral mechanic. Paradox games have such a boring approach to religions where it's just a set of stat modifiers that you can maybe change if you have enough points. I'd love a game where the process of how religious doctrine, culture and worldviews developed was part of the game and religions weren't static things but something people think about and debate like they did irl. I guess a bit like how Victoria 3 simulates politics through debates and events. As it is now no Paradox game could ever simulate Iconoclasm for example. Though of course doing this would be extremely controversial.
At one time they had a portrait for Muhammad but they quietly replaced it with the Shahadah around the same time as Sword of Islam was released. Patch 1.0.6 I think.
@@hedgehog3180 there would be minimal controversy or worry in representing the Great Schism or anything relating to Christianity for that matter.
It isn't Christians they need to tiptoe around.
they can’t depict Muhammad in Crusader Kings because (aside from the obvious) that would also include the option of dismembering, torturing, gay seducing, etc etc him… i guess they could have Arabia “off stage” until after he’s dead in time line but that would still piss people off
Imperator Rome had so much potential, such a shame they stopped development. The gameplay really is good after the last update; I do still play occasionally thanks to the great mods still in development.
Excess provinces, confusing mechanics, too much to manage... random balding babies ruining alliances...
@@caioaugusto3138 Sounds pretty close to how I imagine irl empire management to be...
@@astralax idk, never managed an empire, but I've managed some "big" stuff.
You usually are able to manage one smaller thing REALLY well and closely, but you kind of have to rely on people that have the same interests as you to manage other stuff well.
However, sometimes you have to choose between someone that knows the stuff you can't manage really well and someone that doesn't know what they are doing but do have the same interests as you.
You can solve this dilemma by having the "lesser" guy be tutored by the "evil" but knowledgeable one; However, you have to promise a promotion to the tutor, otherwise it won't work at all, this is what I call "falling to the top". Give the guy a meaningless position that pays really well, you aren't paying for his services, you are paying for your peace; see it like a pension of sorts.
@@caioaugusto3138 This is a really interesting insight, and reminds me of CGP Grey's video on the Rules for Rulers. The pattern you describe is one I recognise in a lot of my reading around figures like Thomas Cromwell (a rare case of ability and loyalty combining in one man, until they didn't) and the Romanovs (who were often paralysed by the balance of interests in Tsarist Russia). I suppose one could characterise democracy as an effort to weaken the pressures that lead to such cronyism.
@@caioaugusto3138yeah, the cultural growing and develoment trees are unnesarely slow and weird, it felt like ck2 but without the cool wars and funny events.
Kinda soulless in My opinión
Everyday before I sleep I pray to any high being for paradox to update imperator rome
"Wow haha, this cake looks just like a noble, Robespierre!"
"Yes yes, let's using the guillotine to cut into it!"
"Robesy, why did the cake scream? And is that strawberry jam?!"
The Roman Senate gathers in front of a particularly well painted statue Caesar, knives at the ready, the mass of them shuffling in anticipation, with one question on their minds “hoc nos delectabit?”
Slight correction: term Imperator was used during the republic and it did not become synonym to word emperor until much later. Imperator was persom who held 'imperium', which basicly just meant the power all military commander and civic officials held.
Oh you explained it later
@@glendaal67 This is why people should watch the whole video before they leave comments. It's really not that hard to do.
@@jovaniibb It isn't, but I might not even remember it at the end anymore. Also, if you are using term in a way it seems you don't know what it's about you could also say something like "there is more to it later". Otherwise it's going to just seem you don't know, and I know that's on purpose as well.
@@glendaal67 absolutely agree, this annoyed me to an unreasonable degree. considering how often this guy says "we'll come back to that later" or something similar when discussing a concept (which is very good imo), it came off as more jarring than anything
You seem to forget than this is a sequel to EU:Rome (game which had same end date but later start date, 280 bce), they could've called that EU:Rome 2 just as well. The main focus is obviously on successor's states (diadochi) and their power struggle, as well as on the rise of Carthage and Rome.
You asked, when did Rome became "imperialistic" in a modern sense of the word, well the answer is obvious - after second punic war. However it's not really fun for Rome to win every single time (people still complaining about lack of variety in this game, guess they haven't played EU Rome too).
The meaning of start date, in case you didn't know: 304 bce is the year when Alexander's successors started calling themselves kings. So the successor era has began. It will end when imperialistic rome, after defeating Cartahage will then put an end to Macedon and Seleucid Empire (where Hannibal himself ended up as a military advisor). This is what this game is supposed to be about.
You can gather this information by playing, instead of looking at the title.
Very enjoyable video, thanks for making it :)
Glad to hear you liked it. Always nice to hear from a popular Paradox player about these things.
15:22 EUIII originally ended before Napoleonic Wars, it was first "DLC" - Napoleonic Ambitions - which elongated the scope of game to circa 1820.
I think by the end Rome was the Mediterranean hegemon. There were no rivals to rome by 27 BC. Even the Parthians were a much smaller state. This was mostly true by the time of caesar.
But that is still only a few decades of a large game. Though if you really want to get to brass tacks, Rome was pretty unchallengeable by an outside power for a century by then.
Also, man, roman siege engine naming is pretty wild in how modern people transliterate and conflate everything that threw a rock or arrow.
Well I mean by the time the Romans beat the Selucids they were basically unrivaled in the Mediterranean so that's long before this game ends, and that was a fairly one sided conflict as well.
Cool Video!I have been replaying the game recently and i sure didnt expect to hear about it in 2022
“Let’s disco dance Hammurabi”
- Albert Einstein
Not to be semantic or anything but the word you're looking for is "pedantic", not "semantic". Semantic means relating the words.
Just discovered your channel. Awesome stuff so far. 👏
Excellent video, but Imperator during the republic just means Commander, and was never the sole title of Roman “emperors” although used as part of their multiple titles. So the games name really isn’t a problem as you do a fair bit of commanding
I address that in the "Defining a ruler" chapter, for the most part, though I suppose the part about what people might assume about the game before playing is a fair bit anecdotal.
It's actually the linguistic root of the term Emperor, also it's what your armies in Rome Total War address you as.
Small nitpick: the term the Bizantines used to call their emperor was Αύτοκράτωρ/Aftokrator = Dictator/Emperor/Autocrat... As well as Basileus
I love this game so much. i hope it has more content, it's really special with it's amazing population, culture, and growth mechanics
I'm binge watching your channel, and it's funny how "my next video" is never really the next video hehe
That was an interesting video. Imperator rome is a hard game to make despite its problems. I was planning to mod some of it and your review really opened my eyes.
I got confused a little when you mentioned that everything is Rome or least feels like Rome. While I believe nations are still a bit too similar inside the game, would they be so different in tech had they created an empire as big as the Romans? I would love to hear more about how wrong I am for each case, tho
Also, about the transition between Republic and empire. There isn't anything in the game to properly simulate such scenario yet. All the events are too fast and sucks.
How would you implement such transition?
I would agree that empires would structure themselves differently. The Roman Empire and the Han, both massive empires of the time, had very different economic models. China was run by a Confucian bureaucracy which managed a complex irrigation fuelled agrarian economy. Rome’s empire was built off the massive trade network of the Mediterranean and economic specialisation of the provinces, which allowed for the development of semi-modern financial and banking systems. However what is common between them is that the empires were built off large, complex economic systems that wouldn’t be able to be exist if stuck between various kingdoms and warring states.
I'm quite a fan of the history and dynamics of the pre-Imperial Roman Republic... I was quite disappointed in Imperator: Rome for failing to model this.
The intricacies of oligarchic democracy where those with the cultural and legal right to rule were voted into essential any position in what nowadays we would consider the civil service (though at the time significant overlap between religious, political, civil and military).
Prior to the release of the game I had imagined a system very similar to CK2/3 where it's all about getting the people you wanted to positions within your government and army... Managing those characters expectations for prestige and favour with bribes and things like holding a Triumph or games in someone's honour of something. Leading to conquests solely for a general to be granted another title, very much like the proto-imperialism of the real Roman Republic.
Other nations at the time could be modelled more closely to the CK system of direct appointments (maybe with lower bonuses) where appropriate or even more open systems like with the Athenians and Macedonians.
A game like this would have perhaps fit the name "Imperator" more as it would have been more about that gained title of a Roman Commander, though probably still would have invoked the same questions.
While I don't hate the approach the game took, I find it really falls into a lot of the traps mentioned in the video. I'd blame this generally on scope creep, leading to a poor foundation to build the game on.
In the end I think the periods historical reality detracts from what makes a lot of people interested in it. So even the game I imagined wouldn't have been popular.
The Roman Empire inherited it's empire from the Republic, so empire building (a core of most paradox games) would be missing for a lot of players if that was the emphasis. And the Republic does not expand with imperial ambitions that many players approach this sort of game with.
So in the end it makes a lot of sense that this 'Time Compression' ended up being so present in the final product.
Yeah, I share this sentiment in two ways.
Actually, I originally had this whole superfluous deep dive into the order I experienced paradox games in my Victoria 3 video, but I cut it for time (and relevance). I started with CK2 and when I heard about EU4 and how it allowed the whole world to be played, I was far far far less interested in being in Europe than like...being someone within the Ming empire. I wanted so badly to see how they'd model the imperial politics of Dynastic China. Of course, that's not actually how the game was modeled. Much the same to Imperator, except both better and worse. I knew it had people modeled in it so that gave me some hope, but I also knew it had trade and pops, and so I kinda figured it would be more between stellaris or vicky and Ck2 than it would be a CK: Rome.
Excellent work!
Awesome video!
loved this video!
Hey I think you should check out "Grey Eminence". The game isnt out yet but I think you should check out the dev diaries. I think you would find it interesting.
Interesting for sure, but I'm very skeptical. Too long of a period to carefully model, small hexagons🤔 mmm
Well-aged comment
The border of Rome is the pomerium, everything else is Barbarian Lands; yes even Ravenna
Great video.
I think there's a simple misconception that rome (or any other empire) was officially an empire first and then started doing imperialism not the other way around. If people think of "Empire" as rapid military expansion the Imperial period was largely the opposite as it was already unsustainable by that time.
I always forget it's supposed to be pronounced that way because I will only pronounce it 'Im-PEAR-uh-tor'. Pretty sure there was a voiceline from Rome Total War that said it that way but that's also just how it looks it should be pronounced and sounds better to my ears. I will die on this hill. Latin is dead I can do what I want :D
Yeah RTW pronounces it wrong, which is why I always pronounce it wrong too lol
Is there a mod that adds the rest of Asia and Africa?
Bit late but There’s a mod what adds china but I think that’s It
It’s a shame development was dropped because it could have been a lot more interesting
The thumbnail is really funny 😂
Imperator fundamentally just meant "Power"
Make a civ4 vid pls
15:13 This isn't actually true. EU3 at release ended in 1789 and one of the dlcs pushed it back to 1821.
I have maybe under 500 hours in this game and only ever played as Rome attempting to speed run a map paint. This game was so poorly handled in its development it feels like a huge mess to play and it really suffers from the fact you don't have much competition by midpoint of the game. It needed a better direction. I love it's map tho I think it's the best map of paradox titles love the shade overview and seeing the actual territory.
Never