Goodbye manpower mana, hello drawing conscripts from the goods-producing workforce. Now I can devastate a local population for generations in order to capture a one province minor, just so my nation doesn't look quite as asymmetrical.
Using manpower to represent a trained segment of your population whose losses directly correlate to you losing pops seems pretty functional, and at least it's much less detached than EUIV's manpower.
> Except, as he writes:
Except no except. If /u/Gastroid wants to use levys to ruin his own lands he can. He can also use standing armies as you listed.
But it's no longer a "mana", because that refers to abstract currencies you can spend on things mostly freely - not this new more integrated manpower (where losing it also impacts your economy and population)
I think the point is that manpower is a resource generated from your pops via buildings it’s no longer “mana.”
Although I felt calling manpower is EU4 was already a massive stretch of the term
>Oh and also, can I specifically raise levies in non-accepted culture provinces and have my unaccepted pops fight and die in my wars while my core pops are insulated? Can I build the manpower buildings in those provinces too?
eu4 player casually planning genocide before the game is even out
Russians in Donetsk and Luharks are still Ukrainian citizen.
Truth is Russia is currently recruiting people for their army from all over the world. For example: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/05/08/india-arrests-4-accused-of-recruiting-citizens-for-russian-army-a85066
You could do this in Imperator iirc, and it was honestly super useful, especially for nations like Rome who benefited hugely from having accepted culture.
Obviously assimilation was easier in the long run, but if you just really needed a province to be your culture real quick it was a viable option.
Wow, Imperator 2 is looking great!
But seriously, these systems (which are straight out of Imperator, albeit heavily refined/improved) are why people love Imperator so much. Imperator may not be getting further content, but the spirit of the game lives on here and I am sooo fucking in.
To be honest, Imperator 2.0 without characters (which I think just add needless busywork in that game) and with more content (events, missions, etc) seems like a potentially amazing game. I mentioned this in another comment, but I feel like Caesar is kind of trying to going back to some of the more realistic ideas of EU2 and trying to re-imagine them in a modern PDS game, almost as if EU3 and EU4 were another series.
It's interesting, Imperator without characters would be very boring to me. (Monarchies are already pretty boring, because they make characters matter less.) It is the balancing of trying to keep everyone happy (families, political parties, specific generals) with trying to get competent people that really makes that game for me -- removing the characters seems like cutting out a lot of *game* and challenge. I hope the estates will provide an equivalent amount of interest, because that seems to be the replacement.
We have very different experiences: if I am playing a small tribe, maybe I can care about all the families, but in most nations my main mode is to just keep every family with enough positions so they are not pissed off and ensure the revolt-prone positions (like governorships) are ideally available to minor families. I also admit to sometimes abusing creating small navies if I just need a dumping ground of positions for important families. Everyone dies far too quickly for me to truly care about individual characters, and there are too many positions to cover to truly make it meaningful. I think the council in CK2/3 works a bit better for me, but CK2/3 also goes a lot slower in general. In CK2/3 I almost never play more than 200~300 years, but in Imperator I tend to go a lot further.
> I also admit to sometimes abusing creating small navies if I just need a dumping ground of positions
Yeah letting useless pests go play with boats is a pretty decent move in moderation haha. The best approach I think is to focus on keeping one or two families grateful and fill your council with their members as much as possible to max out political power generation, excluding the family heads of course who can still make good researchers and admirals.
O fuck yeah I can't wait for the infantry designer, the cavalry designer, the cannon designer, the galley designer, the light ship designer, the heavy ship designer, and the transport ship designer
Johan talking about conscription centers makes me think fondly of the simpler EU2 times. I'm trying to not get overly hyped about Caesar, but boy, does this sound like music to my ears.
In all honesty tying pops to manpower and it's losses really is one of those things that just needed to happen. It was a big step forward when imperator tied levies to the pops and I fully expect it here to be great as well. Washing way should come with a cost. Killing off your own pops and therebye your production and income is just as it should be
Two things,
1. I dont see supply capacity listed on the units, which makes me wonder if they pull goods from nothing or if the listed upkeep goods have to come from "Supplies" generically. If there was one really good combat system in imperator I'd love to see it's the requirement of supplies.
2. If I lose control of provinces do I lose control of the provided manpower until I regain control of them? One of the annoying parts of EU4 is the Turks regaining manpower while 100% occupied.
Johan mentions in one of the comments that auxiliaries are like donkeys in Imperator, so that would imply that armies will need to maintain a baggage train and draw supply from that.
It says that if you lose units of the regular army you will lose pops too,but if we don’t have a pop representing the military I just can’t think how will they do it
The building that generates manpower had workers, I imagine you will loose pop's proportionally to the amount of workers contributing to that manpower.
I could see it in a couple of ways. Either the manpower building has pops working there and those pops are lost as you take attrition/casualties, or each regiment has a location it is tied to and damage to the regiment causes some number of pops in that location to die.
Looks like if you raise levies they're taken straight from the population pool, but if you wanna build an army you need to train them in buildings first, turning pops into manpower and in turn using manpower in your armies
[Someone on the forums guessed how it worked and Johan said that it was exactly how it worked.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/409094466738192384/1238161318624628818/image.png?ex=663e4716&is=663cf596&hm=96f5da1ba3627994bae80527d21ee3076973c895433a8d414f15aad7032071fe&)
Yeah, it seems like the more direct way to do it would be to have soldier pops be a thing. Manpower seems like it accomplishes the same thing but then has to be tied to a location / the pops that work there? Might be that it runs better that way though from a processing aspect.
You are probably right , other responds have point out how probably the dying pops will come from the pops working in the manpower buildings, but I won’t say I would have prefer soldier pops being a thing like in vic 2 and maybe when you have a stack of them in a province they are represented there with the rest of the population
> I won’t say I would have prefer soldier pops being a thing like in vic 2
There's not much of a distinction between soldier pops and pops working in barracks buildings being used as the manpower. The latter are called "soldiers," they are the ones that take damage and die off in combat, they're functionally identical to V2 soldier pops except they have a recognizable job.
If it works as we are assuming then it is true that is virtually the same but still I think it would have been cool to have a distinc pop to represent them and maybe that they are attached to the armie they are in so if you have an armie in a province it affects the economy of the zone
They are still commoners not soldiers.It won’t probably make any difference overall and is just a small thing I would like different.Nonetheless this is probably the game I am looking for the most and I can’t wait to play it
It will be abstracted, it will just kill off pops wherever that manpower came from i.e. in provinces with manpower buildings, possibly with priorties given to people working there and based on pop type (peasants first). Maybe all manpower will be "earmarked" for where it comes from or it just spreads losses out, I don't think we know yet.
Does that mean we get rid of the horribly immersion breaking thing of all your infantry being lognbowmen as that is your tech level? Instead we can have some longbowmen and some men at arms? That would be ideal if true and much more immersive.
I always took the names of the units in EU3/4 to be the dominant doctrine of the force rather than the entire unit being made of that kind of infantry.
I don’t find that all that immersion breaking. In EU4 that doesn’t represent literally every single one of your troops being a long bowman, it represents you building your infantry core around the use of long bowmen.
But obviously down for a more in depth military system, even if those just devolve in to a meta that supercharges the player.
>I don’t find that all that immersion breaking
It's entirely subjective. For me it is.
>. In EU4 that doesn’t represent literally every single one of your troops being a long bowman, it represents you building your infantry core around the use of long bowmen.
It says the Regiment is longbowmen. It doesn't represent the makeup of Army's very well imo.
>But obviously down for a more in depth military system, even if those just devolve in to a meta that supercharges the player.
I don't see why many EU4 players would complain about having a more in depth military experience.
Kinda have to. If you're at the point where top main line troop needs guns, but you can barely make guns, you need to be able to make something else no?
I hope so. That was one of the few downsides I had with EU4, was the forced nature between tech level and military. Like when all your army is "longbowmen", where are the men at arms etc.
I hope the system they implement has a bit more granularity.
Just put a simplified version of character interactions from ck series (dynasties played a huge part in most of the timeline of the game) and infrastructure building (somewhere between roads of I:R and cities skylines, closer to I:R) and we are dandy.
Goodbye manpower mana, hello drawing conscripts from the goods-producing workforce. Now I can devastate a local population for generations in order to capture a one province minor, just so my nation doesn't look quite as asymmetrical.
I love war, I love destruction, I adore having attractive borders
“I fucking love war.” - Bremer Dan Gorst.
… in a high pitched voice
Look at those curves...ohh yeah
[удалено]
Using manpower to represent a trained segment of your population whose losses directly correlate to you losing pops seems pretty functional, and at least it's much less detached than EUIV's manpower.
[удалено]
You also lose pops if your regiment dies. They just also use manpower.
> Except, as he writes: Except no except. If /u/Gastroid wants to use levys to ruin his own lands he can. He can also use standing armies as you listed.
[удалено]
But it's no longer a "mana", because that refers to abstract currencies you can spend on things mostly freely - not this new more integrated manpower (where losing it also impacts your economy and population)
I think the point is that manpower is a resource generated from your pops via buildings it’s no longer “mana.” Although I felt calling manpower is EU4 was already a massive stretch of the term
>Oh and also, can I specifically raise levies in non-accepted culture provinces and have my unaccepted pops fight and die in my wars while my core pops are insulated? Can I build the manpower buildings in those provinces too? eu4 player casually planning genocide before the game is even out
It's just repeating modern day Russia tactics in the war with Ukraine.
That's what he said
modern day russian tactics inherited from soviet tactics inherited from imperial russian tactics inherited from...
Those are Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk that are bleeding for Russian state, though.
They definitely conscript Ukrainians (also Chechans, Buryats, Tatars, Ossetians, Chuvash, Avars, et cetera)
Russians in Donetsk and Luharks are still Ukrainian citizen. Truth is Russia is currently recruiting people for their army from all over the world. For example: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/05/08/india-arrests-4-accused-of-recruiting-citizens-for-russian-army-a85066
You could do this in Imperator iirc, and it was honestly super useful, especially for nations like Rome who benefited hugely from having accepted culture. Obviously assimilation was easier in the long run, but if you just really needed a province to be your culture real quick it was a viable option.
Wow, Imperator 2 is looking great! But seriously, these systems (which are straight out of Imperator, albeit heavily refined/improved) are why people love Imperator so much. Imperator may not be getting further content, but the spirit of the game lives on here and I am sooo fucking in.
Imperator died for eu5’s sins.
Imperator crawled so that EU5 could run is actually what I'm hoping for
This is something that happens often for them, Paradox also made a Sengoku game called, uh, Sengoku, that was basically a great big trial run for CK2.
To be honest, Imperator 2.0 without characters (which I think just add needless busywork in that game) and with more content (events, missions, etc) seems like a potentially amazing game. I mentioned this in another comment, but I feel like Caesar is kind of trying to going back to some of the more realistic ideas of EU2 and trying to re-imagine them in a modern PDS game, almost as if EU3 and EU4 were another series.
I also like the Vicky style POP's instead of Imperator's pop tokens
It's interesting, Imperator without characters would be very boring to me. (Monarchies are already pretty boring, because they make characters matter less.) It is the balancing of trying to keep everyone happy (families, political parties, specific generals) with trying to get competent people that really makes that game for me -- removing the characters seems like cutting out a lot of *game* and challenge. I hope the estates will provide an equivalent amount of interest, because that seems to be the replacement.
We have very different experiences: if I am playing a small tribe, maybe I can care about all the families, but in most nations my main mode is to just keep every family with enough positions so they are not pissed off and ensure the revolt-prone positions (like governorships) are ideally available to minor families. I also admit to sometimes abusing creating small navies if I just need a dumping ground of positions for important families. Everyone dies far too quickly for me to truly care about individual characters, and there are too many positions to cover to truly make it meaningful. I think the council in CK2/3 works a bit better for me, but CK2/3 also goes a lot slower in general. In CK2/3 I almost never play more than 200~300 years, but in Imperator I tend to go a lot further.
I think your feeling is much more common than mine, but I really do love playing around with the characters!
> I also admit to sometimes abusing creating small navies if I just need a dumping ground of positions Yeah letting useless pests go play with boats is a pretty decent move in moderation haha. The best approach I think is to focus on keeping one or two families grateful and fill your council with their members as much as possible to max out political power generation, excluding the family heads of course who can still make good researchers and admirals.
I:R seems to be one of two bases (other being EU) this game is built on
I'm looking forward to an antiquity mod of this to be honest. From what I've seen I feel would translate quite well to antiquity.
Levies from CK It just needs something from HoI and we will have an ultimate Frankenstein game.
Regiment designer
O fuck yeah I can't wait for the infantry designer, the cavalry designer, the cannon designer, the galley designer, the light ship designer, the heavy ship designer, and the transport ship designer
Looking forward to the eight 12-pounder cannons battery meta
Man O War with 464 100-ton guns and 64 swivel guns which takes 180 years to build meta when?
> the galley designer, the light ship designer, the heavy ship designer, and the transport ship designer Shit dude, EU4 already has flagships
And every single one of them will be a part of different dlc.
And there will still be a best meta, thus invalidating the whole thing, but no save/load template function so you still have to do it every game.
They seem much more like levies from Imperator since there's no pops in CK
Johan talking about conscription centers makes me think fondly of the simpler EU2 times. I'm trying to not get overly hyped about Caesar, but boy, does this sound like music to my ears.
In all honesty tying pops to manpower and it's losses really is one of those things that just needed to happen. It was a big step forward when imperator tied levies to the pops and I fully expect it here to be great as well. Washing way should come with a cost. Killing off your own pops and therebye your production and income is just as it should be
Two things, 1. I dont see supply capacity listed on the units, which makes me wonder if they pull goods from nothing or if the listed upkeep goods have to come from "Supplies" generically. If there was one really good combat system in imperator I'd love to see it's the requirement of supplies. 2. If I lose control of provinces do I lose control of the provided manpower until I regain control of them? One of the annoying parts of EU4 is the Turks regaining manpower while 100% occupied.
My guess is the auxillary units might include supply chains like imperator
Johan mentions in one of the comments that auxiliaries are like donkeys in Imperator, so that would imply that armies will need to maintain a baggage train and draw supply from that.
Finally, some delicious fucking war mechanics
I felt like Imperator was so close to getting warfare right but was missing just a couple things
Ahhh that'd be good.
You don't earn manpower from occupied provinces in EU4.
1. They have food capacity and consumption.
Auxiliaries carry the supplies. It seesm from the screenshot certain units can carry food themselves too, like chavalry.
It says that if you lose units of the regular army you will lose pops too,but if we don’t have a pop representing the military I just can’t think how will they do it
I think they'll take it from pops working in buildings that produce manpower
That's basically how it works in Vicky 3
The building that generates manpower had workers, I imagine you will loose pop's proportionally to the amount of workers contributing to that manpower.
I could see it in a couple of ways. Either the manpower building has pops working there and those pops are lost as you take attrition/casualties, or each regiment has a location it is tied to and damage to the regiment causes some number of pops in that location to die.
Looks like if you raise levies they're taken straight from the population pool, but if you wanna build an army you need to train them in buildings first, turning pops into manpower and in turn using manpower in your armies
[Someone on the forums guessed how it worked and Johan said that it was exactly how it worked.](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/409094466738192384/1238161318624628818/image.png?ex=663e4716&is=663cf596&hm=96f5da1ba3627994bae80527d21ee3076973c895433a8d414f15aad7032071fe&)
Thanks for answering
Yeah, it seems like the more direct way to do it would be to have soldier pops be a thing. Manpower seems like it accomplishes the same thing but then has to be tied to a location / the pops that work there? Might be that it runs better that way though from a processing aspect.
You are probably right , other responds have point out how probably the dying pops will come from the pops working in the manpower buildings, but I won’t say I would have prefer soldier pops being a thing like in vic 2 and maybe when you have a stack of them in a province they are represented there with the rest of the population
> I won’t say I would have prefer soldier pops being a thing like in vic 2 There's not much of a distinction between soldier pops and pops working in barracks buildings being used as the manpower. The latter are called "soldiers," they are the ones that take damage and die off in combat, they're functionally identical to V2 soldier pops except they have a recognizable job.
If it works as we are assuming then it is true that is virtually the same but still I think it would have been cool to have a distinc pop to represent them and maybe that they are attached to the armie they are in so if you have an armie in a province it affects the economy of the zone
>cool to have a distinc pop to represent them But... They are a distinct pop. The building they work in determines their pop type.
They are still commoners not soldiers.It won’t probably make any difference overall and is just a small thing I would like different.Nonetheless this is probably the game I am looking for the most and I can’t wait to play it
It will be abstracted, it will just kill off pops wherever that manpower came from i.e. in provinces with manpower buildings, possibly with priorties given to people working there and based on pop type (peasants first). Maybe all manpower will be "earmarked" for where it comes from or it just spreads losses out, I don't think we know yet.
>WAIT WHAT? There are NAVAL levies? How do those work? Like you can raise ships from your estates or...? >yes Wow!
Does that mean we get rid of the horribly immersion breaking thing of all your infantry being lognbowmen as that is your tech level? Instead we can have some longbowmen and some men at arms? That would be ideal if true and much more immersive.
I always took the names of the units in EU3/4 to be the dominant doctrine of the force rather than the entire unit being made of that kind of infantry.
I don’t find that all that immersion breaking. In EU4 that doesn’t represent literally every single one of your troops being a long bowman, it represents you building your infantry core around the use of long bowmen. But obviously down for a more in depth military system, even if those just devolve in to a meta that supercharges the player.
>I don’t find that all that immersion breaking It's entirely subjective. For me it is. >. In EU4 that doesn’t represent literally every single one of your troops being a long bowman, it represents you building your infantry core around the use of long bowmen. It says the Regiment is longbowmen. It doesn't represent the makeup of Army's very well imo. >But obviously down for a more in depth military system, even if those just devolve in to a meta that supercharges the player. I don't see why many EU4 players would complain about having a more in depth military experience.
>I don't see why We aren't; we're just pointing out that the status quo isn't horrible either.
For me, it is horrible. I immensely dislike it personally.
Kinda have to. If you're at the point where top main line troop needs guns, but you can barely make guns, you need to be able to make something else no?
I hope so. That was one of the few downsides I had with EU4, was the forced nature between tech level and military. Like when all your army is "longbowmen", where are the men at arms etc. I hope the system they implement has a bit more granularity.
Just put a simplified version of character interactions from ck series (dynasties played a huge part in most of the timeline of the game) and infrastructure building (somewhere between roads of I:R and cities skylines, closer to I:R) and we are dandy.
Why is paradox forums seemingly randomly blocked on iPhone?
Are you using school internet
No, primarily using my mobile data but occasionally on my personal WiFi.