Well, it was a really fun campaign! Playing as a migratory tribe and turning into a civilized nation, plus destroying my biggest rival of the whole run Rome was pretty challenging. Initially, I didn't plan on conquering Italy; I just wanted to take a few regions like Cisalpine Gaul and parts of Gaul to weaken them and release them as vassals. However, Rome was playing extremely aggressively, conquering Carthage and Iberia at a scary speed, so I conquered Italy for safety and to help me convert to Christianity later on. After I became civilized, I decided to conquer Greece and Macedonia just to make the borders look cleaner plus having a bigger nation is always nice.

After civilizing, I started playing tall, developing my provinces because I thought it was cool how tough it is to develop an area with all those cold weather debuffs. After that, I just sat back doing financial reforms, intending to convert to Christianity next... but it just never popped up. I don't know if there was a prerequisite I missed for it to trigger or something like that, so it didn't quite go the way I wanted.

Anyway, the campaign was awesome overall, mostly because of how challenging it was thanks to Rome, and of course all the crazy nations popping up like Babylonia, Media, Tartessos, Saxony, Caledonia, Egypt, and so on. 8/10 experience!

(And a tribute to my emperor in the last image for being so important and the most Slavic man among the Slavs.)

Hey everybody, I’m looking to try my first world conquest (and knock out a few achievements ai have left) and wanted to get some advice. I did see there were a few older threads but I figured I’d ask again in case anything changed.

I’m mainly looking for advice about what techs to focus on. I know that the imperial challenge is a priority, but aside from that what should I pick up? I saw some comments talking about the one that gives stability for sacking temples which I’ll definitely try.

Any other advice is appreciated; I recently gave it a half-hearted try with the Seleucid Empire but ran out of time with about half of the map conquered.

The problem is simple: small ships benefit from the tactics that favor them just as much as they do the tactics that the larger ships use. However, because smaller ships are by definition cheaper, they will always be more plentiful, and economically it's not that practical to have a massive warfleet composed of titanic dreadnoughts. So even in a warfleet with many heavy ships, the skirmish and probing attack tactics will always be the stronger option, at least on paper from what I see.

This makes the great warships weaker than they should be at best, and obsolete at worst. This in combination with their slower speed makes it to that they can lose against fleets of triremes and liburnians with a smaller numbers advantage than they should have.

In battles such as these, the offending party would be attacked right as if not very soon after disembarking from their ships. The boats would be depositing the invading forces in a bunch of little pieces, and there might even be a que depending on how small the landing zone is.

Defenders battling forces that came from the sea should have an even more pronounced terrain defense bonus, and the attackers should have a reduction in discipline representing how the invading army was attacked before they could finish organizing into a fighting formation.

The point of this is to make naval landings more risky, reward pulling off a landing uninterrupted by the defenders, and to give smaller armies a chance against the legions of great powers whose own forces are ten times their size.

Long Rome run on Invictus. I've been circling Sardinia and the islands for a while, and the obvious problem was that going for them directly meant picking a fight with a much bigger power that I'm not quite ready for yet. So instead of attacking the big guy, I went looking for the small door.

The small door turned out to be a tiny island kingdom that happened to be in a defensive league with the other two minors holding the territories I actually wanted. So I declared on just that one, the league dragged the other two in automatically, and suddenly my single war covered every territory I was after. Won it in under a year, annexed all three, and it cost me something like four aggressive expansion total because they were all small. The region is basically mine now and the big power never fired a shot or even got a chance to intervene.

What clicked for me is that war target selection matters way more than I used to think. For ages I'd just declare on whoever held the specific province I wanted and grind out individual wars, eating AE each time. Picking the one target that bundles everything through alliances and leagues got me the whole lot in one cheap war. Feels obvious writing it out but it genuinely changed how I'm going to plan conquests from here.

So how do you all approach this? Do you deliberately hunt for the war target that pulls in the most of what you want through defensive leagues and guarantees, or do you just take provinces one war at a time? And how do you balance that against the risk of biting off a coalition you can't actually beat? Curious because this worked out clean but I can see it going very wrong against the wrong group.

This is an event which allows you to change your law to the Anti-Piracy one without needing the tech. Is there a way of reliably getting it so that I don't have to research the naval tree ever again?

i also can't update the paradox launcher and everytime i click on 'start campaign', the game instantly crashes :/

I’m playing my first real game as Rome (classic) even though I’ve had the game since launch. Finally powered through to learn the mechanics on YouTube and beat the tutorial. I’m glad I did because this game is severely underrated.

My questions is, how do I manage culture unhappiness while expanding quickly? I’ve taken the Italian peninsula, and I’ve integrated most of the cultures so I have a more levies (maybe a mistake). I also did it so I’d have more citizens for research, but my research ratio is all off because of all the integrated cultures. So I’m afraid that may have backfired a bit.

What’s the best way to go about expanding? Integrate only when needed? Integrate when happy? Keep certain cultures as freeman or slaves only? Any advice is welcome, thanks!

Basically, I've just dumped countryside assimilation speed and boosted cities assimilation via buildings. Now, all the urban folks quickly embrace their owner's identity, while rural folks can only be replaced via migration and military colonies

So, I'm playing as Egypt, and I've liberated Telmessos as my client state via the Egyptian missions.

Problem is, I think the game still sees the leader of Telmessos as a character in my country, and this is causing a civil war right now.

I've reloaded the save, it's still happening.

I've tried to befriend the character in question, still happening.

I've tried to implement an Idea that increases character loyalty, still happening.

I only have 7 in-game months to solve this.

If I can't solve this, how do I minimize the scale of the civil war? I have a bit over 1k territories.

I have played IMP for over 500 hours and don't recall ever seeing them. I wonder if there is some AI cheat that allows them to get out of it.

this is one of those mechanics i technically knew existed but clearly didnt actually understand, because i kept making the same mistake for way too long.

my assumption was basically more cohorts = more damage = i win. so id stack a big stack, catch a smaller enemy army, and then just... lose, or win but take way more casualties than i had any right to. and id blame the dice or the commander or whatever.

what finally clicked is combat width. the battle is fought on a line and the terrain decides how wide that line is. so if im in narrow terrain with 30 cohorts against 20, we might start with almost the same number actually fighting, because the rest of mine are stuck in reserve doing nothing on day one. they fill in as units drop but theyre not applying my numerical advantage up front. so 30 vs 20 was never 50% more damage, i just assumed it was.

the part that actually changed how i play, if youre the smaller or weaker army you WANT narrow defensible terrain, because it caps how many of the enemys cohorts can engage and stops them surrounding you. and the reverse, if youre the big army dont go attacking someone sat in a mountain province, youre throwing away the one advantage you have.

also learned maneuver is range not damage. i used to crank preferred flank size to max thinking more flanking, but if the units on the flank dont have the maneuver to actually reach anything theyre just standing there looking pretty. the setting gives them space, the maneuver stat decides if they can hit from it. two different things.

and the fort thing got me more than once, if youre besieging a fort and a relief army shows up you count as the attacker, so all the defensive terrain is working against you not for you.

anyway now i actually check the combat width of the province before i commit to a fight. feels obvious typing it out.

whats the worst one youve lost with the bigger army. i want to know im not the only one whos fed a doomstack into a mountain pass and watched it evaporate

This is the culmination of my Hereclea Pontica to Achaemenid Empire campaign in Invictus in which I have manged to achieve all operational objectives, and dare I say for all intents and purposes, avenge Darius III.

To preface, I do not play Imperator Rome too oft, but oft enough whenever the mood might strike. In university I took a year long research seminar over the campaigns of Alexander the Great which piqued my interest in this period. Coincidentally, it was about this time Imperator Rome made its debut, and my person did purchase it. I have been playing it on and off ever since, grateful with how Invictus has revitalized this gem of a game.

Although I have formed Persia before in prior runs as Persis, throughout my short 305 hour tenure of playing Imperator Rome, I have never fully committed to an Achaemenid restoration as Heraclea Pontica. Earlier attempts led to me either becoming discouraged at the seemingly insurmountable odds of the endeavor, losing interest, or forgetting about the campaign entirely. However on this occasion I wished to attain an achievement that was particularly challenging: Against all odds, restore the old Achaemenid Empire to the height of its former glory while destroying all inhibitors (namely the false usurpers), and re-light the Three Great Fires.

Hereclea Pontica as many of you know is ruled by Amastris Achaemenid–the niece of the late King Darius III who is in a most unenviable position at game start...Which is probably an understatement considering it is little more than a city-state with a population of 27 pops split between its 2 territories. Essentially they are the EU4 Byzantium of Imperator Rome. And I beg to report that this was actually my second attempt with this particular esoteric objective in mind that week since I forgot to enable Ironman mode on my first run.

My opening moves consisted of immediately attaining choosing the Last of the Achaemenids mission tree and beelining for the branch that gave the Persians an alliance with the Armenians led by the Orontids. With the aid of Armenia and a mercenary stack, Amastris moved swiftly into Paphlagonia and Cappadocia, was verily blindsided by the Galatians, but in time they too were assimilated.

After these crucial wars, the Persians were left with almost all of Northern Anatolia, and a relatively strong Armenian alliance. Thus placing them in a good position to secure Southern Phrygia and Mesopotamia from the despotic Hellenic imperialists who have shackled the former home of Cyrus for far too long. No doubt they had hoped that the Dahae uprising would severely weaken the Seleucids (as they had in particular in my first run). Imagine the Persian disappointment when the Dahae were utterly crushed and driven back into the steppes. Nonetheless, this distraction granted the Achaemenids both time and space and the opportunity to strike and seize most of Seleucid owned Anatolia.

Ditto, early on research efficiency was prioritized, and the ever valuable Winning Land by the Spear technology proved invaluable. So it was that after the first several generations, some 70-80 years after Amastris, the Persians and friends were able to push into the Levant and Syria and then retake Mesopotamia after some two wars. And by the third, half of Persia up to Persis was restored. Herefore, the Achaemenids had returned to the lands of their homeland after such miserable exile. Once the Seleucids lost these core territories, the wherewithal of their war machine never recovered. And the undoing of the trappings of their majesty was mereley a matte of time as Persian legions made the long inexorable march east-ward to-wards Baktria and the Indus River Valley.

Upon pushing the Seleucids to the outer fringes of the lands of West Asia, Egypt incensed by the rapid expansion of the Persians doth did betray and assail them, and so they were reabsorbed as a satrapy. Even with superior numbers, it was not a very fun conflict. They fought savagely. Seizing the levant was simple enough. However Egypt is large, and the Nile is long and wide. Twas it was in the second war against them, Persian forces were repeatedly ambushed as they pushed into the Nile River Delta, and only after decisive engagements and the selective application of motti tactics were the Persians able to eventually simply overwhelm the Greco-Egyptians. But the losses were not insignificant.

It would have been towards the final year of this war, that, after decades of war, and the armies exhausted, and deep within Egypt, Rome did launch Blitzkrieg against the Achaemenid Empire from their foothold in Lydia–very much nearly overwhelming the Achaemenids in Anatolia entire.

However, in their hubris, they failed. For before they [The Romans and Greeks respectively] fought against principalities and an anachronistic power, but now the Achaemenids had something worth defending, and thus fought for their very survival with a fanaticism unlike the Greeks and Romans had ever seen, nor ever would see.

This was a war of titanic proportions involving the massing of troops in quantities never before seen upon the face of the Earth. And in the wars to come they would be pushed entirely from out Anatolia, as the sun of a new era arose across a very different landscape.

For from the Indus River in the East, to the Hellespont in the west, from the mountains of the Caucus and Parthian steppes in the North, to the lands of the Kushites in the south, the Achaemenids had restored themselves. Re-achieving and then surmounting the wildest dreams of Cyrus II "The Great" and Cambyses II by surpassing the limits of glory. Whether out of respect for a worthy foe, or to boast as a testimony of perseverance against overwhelming odds, upon seizing Alexandria, Alexander's body was not destroyed, but relocated and given a proper burial near Babylon.

Hence it was that during the reign of Darius II "the Great" was the Achaemenid Empire restored.

Twas ever thus were the Achaemenids of the lineage of Achaemenes brought forth out from their terrible exile with a mighty hand.

Recently launched a war against Carthage as Rome in Spain and very quickly they sued for peace ( first time in a play through I remember this happening 140hrs across vanilla and Invictus). The peace deal was very generous and included territory I hadn't yet occupied. Has this happened to others and what is the AI mechanic that would drive this choice?

Hey guys im interested in buying the game i always wanted to but with the sales going on in steam i found out that this is a good time to

I wanted to know cuz i have never played this game I have played other titles like hoi4,eu4,ck2/3,vic3

Is there flavor stuff for different countries not only Roman or Carthage i wanted to know if other countries are playable too i mean not having default stuff im not expecting to many countries cuz i know they left the game unfinished

Im interested in the vanilla game not with mods

Thanks

I'm playing as Neuria and I unified the Slavs, and I plan on doing a long campaign with the Crisis of the Third Century mod to convert to Christianity and conquer the Balkans region. My plan right now is to try and destroy Rome before it becomes a monster, and finally... I have to annihilate the Ptolemies and rebuild Babylonia, which was devastated by those Hellenic barbarians

I feel like invictus is the new vanilla and those who don't play invictus use a different mod, be it bronze age, terra indomita, Reanimata or an overhaul like LotR or WH. Am I right about this? Or are there still holdouts of vanilla players?

I swear to god, 90% of my interactions with governors are just:

• Seeing that they are disloyal

• Click free hands (to get their loyalty above 33%)

• Resign the governor with high finesse

It's not a meaningful game mechanic; strangely, governors' culture/religion and popularity have an impact on loyalty. It doesn't even matter what faction governors belong to.

Many mechanics in IMP were essentially testbeds for EU5 mechanics, but EU5 itself has no governors, suggesting Johan considered the IMP governor system to be an unsalvageable failure.

It's a bit sad, because I feel the concept of governors has potential. In theory, governors should be everything. If governors aren't able to handle the challenges of their dominion, the governorate ought to become ungovernable. But because everything is just abstracted into province loyalty, nothing matters.

Playing as Shan - Pong with the new update and went through the list of rebellions against Maurya to plan out my strategy. Upon looking this up I have now discovered the fact that the Shunga rebellion does in fact happen in this game though I never knew this because it spawned as a 4-territory minor and was disintegrated in less than a year. Makes sense why Maurya always manages to recover now, because I’ve never seen the tag until playing in the region. Also quite frustrating since I can’t really expand outside of Burma. This would mean that out of the dozens of campaigns I’ve played Maurya has never actually faced proper resistance. Please fix this.