|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Non-SMAC related Imperialism II: To buy or not. |
Author | Topic: Imperialism II: To buy or not. |
Valtyr |
posted 06-07-99 01:50 AM ET
I need a new game and I wonder if I should get Imperialism II. Never having played the original game I really don't know what to expect from the sequel. I heard the game was pretty good, but that diplomacy and research were not up to the standards set by SMAC and the like. Does anyone have any opinions on it? |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-08-99 11:32 AM ET
I have Imp2. I like it alot. It is definitely different from Civ-type games. The diplomacy is the weakest part. A SMAC-type model would have been great. On the other hand, I prefer the research model in Imp2. You have three (later four) research slots, each is used for a different tech. You pay money each turn, and the higher-level the tech is, the more cash it will cost. For instance, Fluytes (early cargo ship) cost $100 a turn, while Ironclads (ultimate warship) cost $500 a turn if I remember properly. There is also a random factor (kind of like MOO2) that determines when you actually get that tech. This injects a little more uncertainty about when you will get that tech, and I like that. Trade is important. If you have a trade consulate in another country (a good idea) every trade with that country improves relations. You can also set trade subsidies to encourage that country to trade with you. Whoops, I must go. Let me know if you want more information, and what type. |
Alphaman |
posted 06-09-99 04:16 PM ET
I was in the same situation a little while ago. Fortunately the price of Imp2 here is half what most games cost. So I decided to buy it. Very good game. Worth buying. Hard to get the hang of at first if you played Imp1. (I was trying to make $ by trading instead of mining diamonds and gems) but you soon learn the game. Imp2 is a classic in its genre the same as Civ was in its time. |
Valtyr |
posted 06-09-99 04:19 PM ET
I bought it yesterday. It shows some promise . |
Rex Little |
posted 06-09-99 07:11 PM ET
How about Imp 1? I'm starting to see it in bargain bins. Is it worth picking up? |
HolyWarrior |
posted 06-10-99 01:18 AM ET
Raven--I had bought the demo and liked it, but had one problem. The only way to make money is to sell stuff and mine gems and gold. Between buying techs and units and all, how do you ever get the money to get everything? |
Smeagol |
posted 06-10-99 02:46 AM ET
I was about to ask the same question, before I saw this post. I've read a bunch of reviews, and they all seem really positive about this game. The only complaints I've heard are the diplomacy model, which doesn't give you many options, and also the ability to teleport armies overseas without using ships. Raven-- Can you give a list of pros and cons of the game? Any factors that take away the fun or instead make the game an enjoyable experience? I don't have a great deal of money, but I love turn-based strategy games and am looking for a more complex challenge than SMAC. |
Alphaman |
posted 06-10-99 04:24 AM ET
Rex- for a bargain bin buy you wont go wrong with Imp1. If you like turn based games then this ones for you. HolyW- yes thats the same problem I had too. There is really no trick to it (unfortunately). Basically you have to watch you spending in the early days (even on Easy setting you only start with $50000) and sell a portion of what you make. Smea- Well your money wont go wrong on Imp2. I cant think of any other decent turn based games on the market nowadays. TB games are on the way out I think. Possibly H of M&M 3. But I havent bought that because its waaaay too similar to 1 and 2. |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-10-99 11:42 AM ET
Sorry for not replying. I've been...elsewhere. Playing Imperialism2 for part of the time As for your questions, I would say: Cons: Diplomacy is primitive compared to SMAC. Tactical combat could be done better. Now, as for money: at the beginning, make every single dollar count. Do NOT try to make friends with every Minor Nation and Tribe. Pick one or two and stick with it. Try and trade with those nations as much as possible. Diplomacy works better with MNs as opposed to Tribes. The reason is that starting wars in the Old World creates big diplomatic penalties. No such problem in the New World. You want to get a good slice of the New World, so start that conquest early. Personally, I like to conquer 10 New World provinces. Why? Because after the tenth conquest, each army unit you recruit thereafter gets a free medal of experience. This is important. There is a big difference between a unit without medals and one with four. And about the "Teleporting troops": troops need ships only for invasions. Going from friendly province to friendly province does not require ships. This is actually a design decision, and has been discussed on other boards. That's all for now. |
Smeagol |
posted 06-10-99 12:42 PM ET
Alphaman and Raven-- Thanks for the info. I guess the "teleporting troops into friendly provinces" doesn't hurt the game much, but I think it might make the naval aspect of the game a bit less significant. I'll try the demo and see for myself. |
SnowFire |
posted 06-10-99 12:57 PM ET
Smeagol: If ImpII is anything like ImpI, the naval aspect will be incredibly key. Blcokades, anyone? And also insuring that those resources your enemies are trying to ship from the New World never reach their destination? I have two questions abuot what might go wrong with ImpII, though I intend to buy it- is it true that oppurtunity fire is gone? I sure hope not. That's one reason I liked ImpI so much- setting up your own kill fields for the enemy to stumble in, as well as evading theirs on the attack- fun stuff. As for making money: Yeah, that's sort a main point. Bootstrapping an economy into solvence is fun and challenging. As for Imp1, though slightly flawed in more than a few ways, it's still a great game if you pick it up. |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-10-99 04:08 PM ET
Fear not. Opportunity fire is still there. |
Imran Siddiqui |
posted 06-10-99 07:42 PM ET
Ah, I just got Imp 2 as well (Wanted it for a while. Some fellows at Apolyton convinced me.) Looks good so far. I've been glued. It is a wonderful game in the Civ mold. Turn Based that grabs you and won't let go . Imran Siddiqui |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-11-99 11:11 AM ET
SPYING Spies are very important. In the beginning of the game, you will be able to afford to research only one or two techs at a time. It will often seem that the CPs have an unfair advantage, because they get techs first. Fear not. The spy is your friend. In the long run a spy pays for itself many times over. Only a single spy can steal tech for a particular CP at once. If say, England has the advanced warships tech, and you want it for cheap, put a spy in England. But only one. Any others will do nothing. But if both England and Sweden have the tech, you can put a spy in each country, and your bonus will be increased accordingly. The manual is not entirely clear on this. Just remember: even the lowest techs cost at least $1000 all told. A spy costs $500 and 3 units of paper. Used properly, that spy can get you several techs, possibly saving you thousands of dollars. This can be a lifesaver. |
Alphaman |
posted 06-11-99 11:43 AM ET
On this note, the manual says that you should invest $0 in the project and wait for your spy to steal it. Is this true? Should you still spend money on the project? Will it make the spying easier? Are you going to have to wait for ever for the spy to succeed? |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-11-99 01:09 PM ET
No, Alphaman. The spy does "steal" the tech. What he does is accelerate the speed at which you research it. For instance, set a new research project to $0. It should say 99 turns to completion. Then use the spy. You will see that time to completion changes. If you also fund the project, it will go even faster. So the process is ongoing, it is not like the probe teams in SMAC. Whether or not you want to fund the project as well depends on how badly you want it. Spending money has no actual effect on the spy itself. Does this make sense to you? |
Smeagol |
posted 06-11-99 01:17 PM ET
I think that makes a great deal of sense. A spy could be effective on any number of levels-- he could discover the entire basis for a tech at once, or (more likely) he'd uncover some info that might be a small part of how the tech works. Either way the researchers would have to analyze the info and complete it themselves, so this seems like a good idea to me. |
Alphaman |
posted 06-11-99 01:19 PM ET
Yeh, I get it. I'm going to put a spy in a country and set the money to zero. Another: |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-11-99 02:12 PM ET
Yes it is. You really don't want your enemies to get that tech that you researched by yourself, do you? No, prevent those slackers from stealing your hard-earned research by stationing a spy inside your empire. Where does not matter. You can only use one spy at a time for counter-espionage. |
Alphaman |
posted 06-11-99 02:32 PM ET
One spy per territory/land mass/whole empire? |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-11-99 03:06 PM ET
One per your empire. |
SnowFire |
posted 06-11-99 03:13 PM ET
Hehe. I just got it yesterday, at last, and whddaya know, I ran into the same problem as Alphaman- I was going broke. I don't like the new economics model that sort of forces you either to find your own Potosi, or else be self-sufficient. I quit two games because I had a lot of very nice land that had one spice grove and that was it. My third time I went for the Incas, and they were surprsinigly much easier to conquer than most "weak" tribes- I crushed them easily, along with their capital. By the way, has anyone noticed any real differences between the powers yet? England and Sweden always start on their own island, Sweden usualally has plenty of wood and England plenty of coal, Holland & France are flat and have a lot of grain, and Spain and Portugal are just average. |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-15-99 11:17 AM ET
Interestingly, I have found that there is no clear "winning power" that shows up each game. Each game has been different. As an example, in my last game, Spain was my biggest foe. It had a big army, and used it. I had to invade it at the end to prevent them from winning. Portugal was also causing trouble for me. This time, Spain is getting crushed by lil' ol' Holland. England is becoming quite the colonial power. However, I just got musketeers, bwah-ha-ha!! |
SnowFire |
posted 06-15-99 06:39 PM ET
That's probably because there doesn't really seem to be any difference between the colonial powers, aside from different starting patterns (as noted before). In my game (percent dif 114), France got uppity with its early power lead and declared war on me, which activated my alliances and got lots of people pissed at France. After relieving them of the burden of governing a New World province next to mine, I made peace and let France enjoy a war with my former allies. Meanwhile, I had conquered the Incas and found myself to be mad silly rich. Alas, I had no supply of tin. So I basically sat back and watched and made money and got technology. Eventually, another war started against France, and Holland and I collected her New World territories, and Holland completely overran all of mainland France except Paris (that would fall years later to them, as well). That left Holland, England (myself), and Portugal as the main players. With my cash reserves, I finally had researched my way up to weapons that didn't require bronze, and then proceeded to swoop down on Sweden first and take over their territories. By then, a war started against Spain, the other sick man of Europe, and Portugal and Holland promptly started tearing off large chunks of her (she bordered both Portugal and former France, after all) and I realized that I would be too late for that war. So I simply went on a massive minor nation conquering spree, and took over the rest of Denmark (Holland had invaded part before), Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Scotland (Switzerland had joined me voluntarily before). And that was enough to win, so no need to ever have to fight Holland or Portugal (whew!). My second game I'm playing on the real map of Europe as Sweden. I've already gone on a serious conquering spree, but darn it if the French aren't making trouble again. Well, we'll see about that. One thing that's kind of annoying is that the only really viable option when dealing with the New World is being a total bastard with the Indians. Not only is it cheaper to conquer rather than make friends, it's safer too. If you spend the money on making friends with an Indian tribe, and then find a different Old World power splattering those Indians on the floor before you can buy their land, you're up a creek. It's safer to simply kill and expunge- a shame. Even if for just gameplay reasons, there should be two viable options, not one. |
HolyWarrior |
posted 06-15-99 10:10 PM ET
Colonization had the same problem. Even if you tried to make nice to the Natives as France, there was nothing to prevent England or Spain from stomping on them--unless you stomped them first. If Imp2 shows up in a bargain bin, I'll definately get it. Too many other things I'd like to get. |
SnowFire |
posted 06-16-99 10:37 AM ET
And another thing I might add. The melee units are far too powerful in my mind. Even primitive firearms like the arqeubus were shocking in their destructive potential. Still, I wouldn't mind, if it weren't for the fact that in the next "era," there are still powerful melee units like the lancer and the halberdier. Come on! By the time musketeers were around, those halberdiers are going to find some holes in their armor. |
Sethito |
posted 06-16-99 11:41 AM ET
This game sounds pretty cool. I am thinking about getting it. If i get it, if there are different levels, what level whould i first play at? (i have never played an imperialism game.) |
Tolls |
posted 06-16-99 11:56 AM ET
Snowfire: Don't know about the weapons balance in the game, but an arquebus was no more effective than a crossbow (the earlier versions less so)...and the likes of pikes/halberdiers were used effectively with muskets in armies up til the mid/late-17th century because the rate of fire of muskets was still quite low, which left them vulnerable to cavalry. |
SnowFire |
posted 06-16-99 01:11 PM ET
Oh yes, I'd agree with you that crossbows were perhaps even better than arquebuses. But troops armed solely with halberds- I'm not so sure. I'd rather use the strategy of shoot, than fix bayonets so every man is both a ranged attacker and a melee attacker. Yet another complaint- railroads in the 1700's? I suppose you need them there to make the game's industry flow right, but still, that's a tad early in my mind. |
OhWell |
posted 06-16-99 03:32 PM ET
Does IMP2 have human controlled tactical combat for navel units or is it still resolved by the computer? |
SnowFire |
posted 06-16-99 04:36 PM ET
Still resolved by the computer. But the game doesn't revolve quite so much around naval transport anymore. Yet another thing missing in Imp II: The rich historical background put into Colonization! at the end of the manual. That's a shame they didn't print that up. And how about naming your explorers, so instead of "Explorer discovers capital of Aztecs" it's "Cortez discovers" or "De Soto" or "La Salle" discovers? Same for ships. I'd like to see Henry Hudson discover things, not the CK Something. On Colonization: I thought that had a quite realistic approach with the Indians. If you Christanized them and didn't attack yourself and didn't build too close to their capital, they were not a problem. Plus, the more yuo killed Indians, the more your score was penalized. It was certainly option to go on a conquest rampage, but there were still two balanced options. Also, does anyone else find it hard to believe that you can colonize almost the entire New World by the 1700's and really start developing it? I think that's another case where Colonization did better, with half the map routinely staying Indian to the end: Sure, you can conquer that much if you want, but you won't have the population to fill that kind of area. |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-18-99 03:08 PM ET
Actually, Snowfire, I usually have at least two tribes staying alive until later. I usually conquer a couple, and then make friends just to deny them to the CPs. As I am generally isolationist (until ready to be REALLY expansionist) this generally works out. I agree with you on some of your other critiques. The problem was that this is not an "A-list" title for SSI. So the team was not given as much support as they might have. A perfect example is the fact that SSI has not updated the Imp2 webpage in months. In fact I believe that if you try to buy the game online through SSI, you will still get a message saying that the game is not available yet. That must be really frustrating for the development team. |
Valtyr |
posted 06-20-99 09:22 PM ET
Aarrgghh!! I just hate those "idle workers"! No matter what I do, they still appear . |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-21-99 11:26 AM ET
Valtyr- What do you mean, "idle workers?" |
Valtyr |
posted 06-22-99 06:32 PM ET
Well, I have enough food (simple food economy) and produce a lot of materials, but the workers still report sick. I'm going along great, have conquered half of the New World and even some of Sweden (I'm Portugal), I don't have any apprentice workers yet, so I don't need refined sugar, but still they report sick and die within the next turn or so. I'm getting sick myself . |
SnowFire |
posted 06-22-99 09:27 PM ET
You probably don't have it on simple food economy, that's the problem. If a worker doesn't either eat the meat or grain he wants, he won't die, but he'll eat the other kind and get sick. But your worker's definitely shouldn't be dying. |
Valtyr |
posted 06-22-99 09:56 PM ET
But I made sure that I did put it on a simple food economy, I even checked afterwards while playing. This is strange... I have warnings on, so that I would know if I was recruiting more workers than I could afford to feed. Then suddenly, without warning, there is lack of food somehow. How can there be lack of food when I made absolutely sure that I wasn't recruiting too many workers? |
SnowFire |
posted 06-23-99 08:11 AM ET
Perhaps you aren't transporting all of it. Go to the transit screen, they have the grain eaten/meat eaten on the left side and the amount transported on the right. The game won't warn you if you can simply ship more fish/grain over. |
Raven of Despair |
posted 06-23-99 11:27 AM ET
SnowFire is right. That definitely should not be happening. I have never seen it. |
Valtyr |
posted 06-23-99 02:04 PM ET
Nope, I have roads everywhere in my Old World provinces and I'm transporting every unit of fish that I can from the New World. I'll start a new game to see what happens. |
Sethito |
posted 06-25-99 05:36 PM ET
who makes the game, and what is the website? |
Valtyr |
posted 06-25-99 05:42 PM ET
The game is made by SSI/Frog City and the website is www.imperialism2.com . |
Valtyr |
posted 06-25-99 06:55 PM ET
The best thing about this game is its music. |
SnowFire |
posted 06-25-99 08:15 PM ET
It's nice... but a bit too similar to ImpI in style for my tastes. And it gets repetetive after awhile. Still good though. Sheesh, on the harder levels, the computer declares war too early before you've built yourself up enough to cope. It ain't fair... sigh. |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.