Johan said: First of all, we have the current ruler, which in Rome is called the Consul. In a decision to make it more into a fun engaging game, where you care about your characters, you only have one consul in rome, and they serve for five years. Click to expand...

Can't say I'm happy about the decision only to have one consul - for my part at least (but I suspect I am not the only one) the main thing that makes paradox-games fun and engaging is is their firm historical grounding. I want to feel like I'm playing as the Roman republic, which famously had two consuls. Why not at least have a "junior" consulship as one of the other government offices? That way we would have two consuls, and you would have a single leader whose stats could matter for game-purposes.Before this turns into the tired history vs. realism debate, I'll stress that I fully understand and agree that some historical factors do not make for fun game-play (nobody wants to micro-manage latrine-digging), but I struggle to see why the system of two consuls would not make for fun gameplay, and I don't get your reason. I am sure this will make the game less engaging for me. It's not that I don't get that your games have to work as... well games. But the semblance of history - particularly in the set-up - is one of the main things that makes them engaging, at least for me, and one of the things paradox games do SO well, that Civilization do not.* I'll still be looking forward to Imperator, but I am worried that it won't really feel like Rome without the double consulship, at least not for me - and its the feeling of playing the state I expect will make a game like Imperator engaging for me.*Civ-games are great (excepting of course the abomination CIV6), but in a paradox game like EUIV I get to feel like the British marching on Paris, a feeling I'll never get in CIV; because the random start causes Paris to lie in a Jungle, Britian to lie in a desert, and both to border the Mongols.