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!
nlancier wrote:Wont buy Imperator: Rome and waiting for FOG:E - pbem with 6 players. PBeM rulez anyway!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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pocus wrote:Sorry it is not there, this feature you talk about. But you can check all units for your enemies now.
Return to “Field of Glory: Empires”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests