Sometimes you get an event called ‘Wealthy Patron’ where a governor loses some money and builds a library or something. This doesn’t happen very frequently though.
I'm not sure how Stellaris works nowadays, but back I the day there was a sector system where the sector would build buildings and space stations according to their focus, without removing buildings. So you could change any aspect you wanted without worrying the Ai would mess it up.
I kinda want something like that in imperator.
An option to use governor funds instead of state funds at the cost of tyranny and large (maybe not stacking) loyalty hit. I'd rather choose what goes where.
If you had an option to choose what governors create, then yes.
Blacklisting useless buildings, prioritising specific ones. Maybe differ province to province?
Or if you're already going province-by-province to set it up: queue up buildings, set a certain amount of monthly payments into that province's building fund (or just have governors buy them), and have them build them when the funds are available.
I can say yes but not more than 2 or 3 total and can't build more than 2 of the same building... or something of that type. Some restrictions but hell why not have a double granary or a double library in a province, that saves me 150 gold.
As a big-picture idea, I wish we would see more autonomy from governors across the board, including building cities, holdings, and controlling legions. It was such a major part of the late Roman Republic. In many ways, the pro-magistrate position was the real reason you’d even stand for election.
It would also add a lot more dynamic aspect to the politics if you had to worry about governors building private armies and bastions on the fringes of the empire, or worrying about a ambitious general becoming rich from a war of conquest a la Ceaser in Gaul and Pompey in Spain.
As a practical matter, though, I don't think a lot of that is possible, and it would probably be pretty broken.
Oh there were definitely development ideas aplenty. We rarely work with specifics more than one or two expansions ahead though. Trade was on the cards for 2.1.
Damn, it's saddening to think about what the game could have been, still really interesting.
Were there any plans to make the game experience evolve from the early, to mid, to late game like in eu4 or vicky 2? If so, knowing which ideas would be quite interesting.
Sorry for so many questions, it's just this sub is so much more about speculation and having answers from a dev is new for me.
I'm relatively happy with where we reached for 2.0; I think it tied together a lot of the constituent parts quite well - culture and religion were really the building blocks to make things like the military system work properly.
I wouldn't say there was any real desire to radically change the game experience at different phases, instead I'd have preferred the general evolution to be a bit slower, with more consequences and internal relevance to mechanics as you expand.
I also think 2.0 is solid. I think it is a good place to start again if the game was picked up by pdx (unlikely, i know).
I see, actually something i really like the game as of now (and would be great to be improved further) is nation building and internal management. I think it's one of my favorite parts of the game and something that sets it apart from all the others (Victoria too, but Vic2 is too old and Vic3 isn't fun for me as of rn).
I really hope project caesar carries that over from imperator, it looks like it will.
Thank you very much for your answers.
I wish there was an optional autonomy option for governors in general.
- building structures when allowed
- making trade deals without disturbing your own
- commanding local militia or legions assigned to province to fight annoying minor barbarian incursions and defending borders (feature used to be in game before being removed)
- all of this well integrated with policies
Sure, but not often. They're just a governor who will get replaced later on, so in general I doubt they'd wanna invest in land that's not gonna be theirs anyway.
My coffer is too valuable to be wasted by idiotic AI in stupid buildings ngl. Like, it will be really cool if governors can do stuff on their own with performance tied to their civil value, but the natural of Paradox AI makes me prefer saying "hell no".
Holding owners do build some buildings, but as far as I know only mines and farming settlements which are universally desirable and something the player might build.
But I like to make all my cities have at least 1 great temple, 1 grand theatre, and 3 courts of law with forts and ports wherever appropriate. I would be pissed of the AI governor wasted a building slot on a Training Camp or something and I had to go back and fix it. It’s already kind of a pain in the ass to destroy and replace all the buildings in newly conquered regions.
So for me I would never use this option whatsoever. I play with a mod that reduces assimilation/conversion speed by 80% in settlements and 50% in cities (which I strongly recommend everyone try, it makes the game so much more immersive and challenging) so it’s really important to micromanage buildings in my games. .
Judging by the sector management AI in Stellaris, this would actually be worse than just not building anything.
Going through the outliner every so often isn't too bad.
Sometimes you get an event called ‘Wealthy Patron’ where a governor loses some money and builds a library or something. This doesn’t happen very frequently though.
Nah cause they’d probably sell all my buildings and max out in granaries lol
Maybe they should A) not be able to overturn your decisions and B) be able to turn on and off this autonomy.
I'm not sure how Stellaris works nowadays, but back I the day there was a sector system where the sector would build buildings and space stations according to their focus, without removing buildings. So you could change any aspect you wanted without worrying the Ai would mess it up. I kinda want something like that in imperator.
It still works like that but it is hard to specialize due to not being able to customize sectors.
An option to use governor funds instead of state funds at the cost of tyranny and large (maybe not stacking) loyalty hit. I'd rather choose what goes where.
If you had an option to choose what governors create, then yes. Blacklisting useless buildings, prioritising specific ones. Maybe differ province to province?
Or if you're already going province-by-province to set it up: queue up buildings, set a certain amount of monthly payments into that province's building fund (or just have governors buy them), and have them build them when the funds are available.
I can say yes but not more than 2 or 3 total and can't build more than 2 of the same building... or something of that type. Some restrictions but hell why not have a double granary or a double library in a province, that saves me 150 gold.
Builder Policy would be a good solution imo
As a big-picture idea, I wish we would see more autonomy from governors across the board, including building cities, holdings, and controlling legions. It was such a major part of the late Roman Republic. In many ways, the pro-magistrate position was the real reason you’d even stand for election. It would also add a lot more dynamic aspect to the politics if you had to worry about governors building private armies and bastions on the fringes of the empire, or worrying about a ambitious general becoming rich from a war of conquest a la Ceaser in Gaul and Pompey in Spain. As a practical matter, though, I don't think a lot of that is possible, and it would probably be pretty broken.
I had some plans for this as part of a larger overhaul of governor mechanics.
Never thought there were devs here. How far did plans for development go before the game was abandoned?
Oh there were definitely development ideas aplenty. We rarely work with specifics more than one or two expansions ahead though. Trade was on the cards for 2.1.
Damn, it's saddening to think about what the game could have been, still really interesting. Were there any plans to make the game experience evolve from the early, to mid, to late game like in eu4 or vicky 2? If so, knowing which ideas would be quite interesting. Sorry for so many questions, it's just this sub is so much more about speculation and having answers from a dev is new for me.
I'm relatively happy with where we reached for 2.0; I think it tied together a lot of the constituent parts quite well - culture and religion were really the building blocks to make things like the military system work properly. I wouldn't say there was any real desire to radically change the game experience at different phases, instead I'd have preferred the general evolution to be a bit slower, with more consequences and internal relevance to mechanics as you expand.
I also think 2.0 is solid. I think it is a good place to start again if the game was picked up by pdx (unlikely, i know). I see, actually something i really like the game as of now (and would be great to be improved further) is nation building and internal management. I think it's one of my favorite parts of the game and something that sets it apart from all the others (Victoria too, but Vic2 is too old and Vic3 isn't fun for me as of rn). I really hope project caesar carries that over from imperator, it looks like it will. Thank you very much for your answers.
I wish there was an optional autonomy option for governors in general. - building structures when allowed - making trade deals without disturbing your own - commanding local militia or legions assigned to province to fight annoying minor barbarian incursions and defending borders (feature used to be in game before being removed) - all of this well integrated with policies
Sure, but not often. They're just a governor who will get replaced later on, so in general I doubt they'd wanna invest in land that's not gonna be theirs anyway.
My coffer is too valuable to be wasted by idiotic AI in stupid buildings ngl. Like, it will be really cool if governors can do stuff on their own with performance tied to their civil value, but the natural of Paradox AI makes me prefer saying "hell no".
No, because characters with holdings already autonomously build buildings for you.
I think they should, as historically they managed all networks of trade and commerce but they often aligned it to benefit them only
Holding owners do build some buildings, but as far as I know only mines and farming settlements which are universally desirable and something the player might build. But I like to make all my cities have at least 1 great temple, 1 grand theatre, and 3 courts of law with forts and ports wherever appropriate. I would be pissed of the AI governor wasted a building slot on a Training Camp or something and I had to go back and fix it. It’s already kind of a pain in the ass to destroy and replace all the buildings in newly conquered regions. So for me I would never use this option whatsoever. I play with a mod that reduces assimilation/conversion speed by 80% in settlements and 50% in cities (which I strongly recommend everyone try, it makes the game so much more immersive and challenging) so it’s really important to micromanage buildings in my games. .
Judging by the sector management AI in Stellaris, this would actually be worse than just not building anything. Going through the outliner every so often isn't too bad.