My concern is that the gradual move towards games with a historical skin, but where all the causal mechanics of history have been removed, makes the game less fun. In HoI4, for example, the Pacific, Eastern and Balkan Theaters were made impossible because of poor design. With what we know about population groups in I:R, this kind of state-organised promotion didn't happen (Since extending Roman citizenship to e.g. the Latin and Social allies doesn't give them citizenship in I:R), and likely couldn't have happened. Social developments in e.g. Iberia and Gaul were gradual, happening over centuries, and without any central force coordinating it.

Victoria 1 was an insane and horrible click-fest for any large nation, and in return it gave you as player the option of converting all your POPs to Craftsmen and Clerks if you wanted. I had a Germany with literally 0 farmers (And also no colonies) - that should be impossible to achieve. I don't think some of the worst and most anti-historical parts of Ricky is something you'd want to emulate.



It's even worse that this manual promotion is based on a single characters abilities as a wizard. It may not be as wacky as the randomly generated wizards of EU4, and player agency may still be a factor, but it's still immersion-breaking and I fear that, like EU4, it will replace any attempt at simulating not just a plausible, but at this point possible, history.

At this point it's too early to know whether these points are deal-breaking. The absolute impossibility of simulating WW2 was a deal-breaker for HoI4, I hope I:R avoids similar mistakes.