GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[Myrddraal]

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/news.html?sid=6158820&tag=topslot;action;1

More details on the missions

[A. Smith]

The interesting part is

If the player makes an agreement with another faction to carry out a certain action in the future (for example, attack another faction), this agreement will become a mission, and players will receive their rewards when the action is completed.

that means there will be no more "helping out" deals wich cna be fulfilled by sending one unit of peasants.

[Martok]

Hmm. No new information from what we've seen elsewhere, although I'm glad they've confirmed missions can be assigned by guilds after all. (I know there's been some confusion on that issue.)

I continue to be intrigued by missions assigned by individuals from another faction. I wonder what benefit(s) they will have if you carry them out.

[Kourutsu]

What where all those gray avatars in the first picture? The ones near London.

[Polemists]

I don't know but I agree. I like this I mean there's so many sources to get missons from. It also looks like they've tested it enough to make sure it dosn't get cluttered or that every single mission is not a simply blockade. I'm curious what sort things you have to do to gain certain guilds. They mention ways of governing your region, so does that mean like if I raise taxes super high the templar chapter house will come, because they'd have a nice chapter house paid for by the nation? :2thumbsup:

[Tamur]

Very odd. This is a repeat of a dev diary that went up on the .com on August 25th. Must be a slow week in the Marketing department.

[Peasant Phill]

What where all those gray avatars in the first picture? The ones near London.

That were rebel factions. AFAIK Flanders (together with a lot of other provinces) starts out as rebel.

[Bob the Insane]

This sounds good...

I liked the senate mission system in RTW for the flavour it gave... Though the fact that most of the missions seemed to be based on cleaning up the messes of the other two Roman factions and pushing you into wars did grate after a while. Though that was all part of the flavour when yu think about it..

The attack and enemy thing turning into a mission...

I wonder if the same thing applies to the AI if you convince them to do the same thing...

[Soulflame]

Odd. I was told on the preview event that guilds could influence the type of mission that you would get, but not be a source themselves. I even asked him twice to be sure since it seemed odd after another interview said there were.

Perhaps he meant you could only get 2 missions at the same time... 1 from guilds/nobles and 1 from the Pope? Seems odd.

Anyway, I'm personally also glad it's in. More variety and different build incentives are always nice.

[Hobot]

Hehehe, I wonder if the council of Nobles will ask you to assassinate yourself on some pretext at some point like the Senate did...That would be quite hilarious :laugh4:

[Little Legioner]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring... :inquisitive:

[Bob the Insane]

That is a matter of opinion I guess...

Personally I like the curve balls the game through at your strategies. Makes you think on the fly, make important decisions with consequences... I mean you can ignore the mission and follow you strategy if you think you know better and if you still win, what does it matter?

I see it as a logical step forward from having morale on the battlefield. Your troops will not do what ever you say no matter what until the death (of course their objections are limited to charging without orders or running away), so why should your Kingdom? It is not like you ,the player, do not have final say in what you do, but you are not operating in a vacum...

[doc_bean]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring... :inquisitive:

It's pretty realistic though, a king would have as much trouble with his own country as witht he enemy. If you ignore the missions/requests from your nobles they would be more likely to revolt. If the missions are better implemented than in Rome and if you can refuse mission by foreign powers it could eb interesting and add some extra flavour to the campaign...

[Lusted]

And remember you didn't actually hsve to do the missions in RTW, i often did my own thing and ignore the senate.

[SpencerH]

I disliked the missions in RTW. Too often they were in complete opposition to what I was trying to accomplish - who's leading this parade anyway, me or the "helpful" AI senate - so I usually ignored them until the senate got uppity (and crushed Rome).

This is definitely a 'wait and see' for me since implementation will be critical.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Very odd. This is a repeat of a dev diary that went up on the .com on August 25th. Must be a slow week in the Marketing department.

Yes, I agree, I read this and kept wondering - well this is not new? :inquisitive:

But it's clear again, you can get missions form 4 entities, at least: Pope, Guilds, Nobles and other factions.

In another thread started on this topic people wondered if you could get some missions from AI characters as well - that should have added tension to the game... Such as an unhappy heir willing to get at least something from papa's empire, before he gets 100 years old, and asking some help from you, The Masters of Assasins, muahahahaha...

I like the ideea of more missions - it sounds closer to real life, where everybody wants something from you and you have to deal, one way or the other, with all of them. :2thumbsup:

[Myrddraal]

It seems to me that factions do not assign you missions directly and out of the blue. It seems that if you make a deal with a faction whereby you do something for them and they then reward you, that deal then becomes a mission. For example:

Italy wants France to attack the Swiss, sends a diplomat to ask them to attack in return for a lot of money.

If the French accept, they get a new mission saying - attack the Swiss. If they complete the mission, the money is then transfered.

[SpencerH]

It seems to me that factions do not assign you missions directly and out of the blue. It seems that if you make a deal with a faction whereby you do something for them and they then reward you, that deal then becomes a mission. For example:

Italy wants France to attack the Swiss, sends a diplomat to ask them to attack in return for a lot of money.

If the French accept, they get a new mission saying - attack the Swiss. If they complete the mission, the money is then transfered.

That sounds reasonable.

What I dont want to see is while I'm busy putting down Irish rebels that I'm supposed to start a crusade to punish the Venetians. 'Do this or else missions' should require an AI that can evaluate what I'm doing and generate appropriate tasks that enhance the variability of gameplay. Somehow I doubt that's in the cards but there's always hope.

[Myrddraal]

'Do this or else missions'

I wonder how big the 'or else' factor will be. If it's minimal then you could just ignore all missions if you wanted to. Then again, civil war and rebellions due to not taking enough notice of your nobles sounds like a cool challenge..

[Myrddraal]

hmm this seems to be the relevant section:

The player will also receive demands or requests from other factions. These can come from individuals within the faction, seeking external help to further themselves within the faction, or from the faction as a whole. If the player makes an agreement with another faction to carry out a certain action in the future (for example, attack another faction), this agreement will become a mission, and players will receive their rewards when the action is completed.

So it seems what I said above it true, but at the same time you can get missions from individuals in the faction. I'm curious.

[Mount Suribachi]

Personaly, i dislike this mission's. Pope, Nobles, Guilds... There are too many sides that demanding something from you. I guess it'll kill free gameplay in campaign if we approach the subject at long term.

Just an example: You decided to capture a strategically important rebel settlement named A. You prepare your troops march upon the city but whoops Nobles demand from you to capture lesser important city B. Your strategy can easily disturb by them. So, besides the Pope why should we deal with everybodies "i want this, i want that" tasks.

I know this issue from Rome. You go to north with Julii against Gaul but Senate wants go somewhere else. Just boring... :inquisitive:

Not boring at all, but rather a reflection on the balancing act a medieval king had to perform to keep his throne. Merchants, nobles and the church all want their own way, and they're rarely the same....might force the player to make tough choices - which I like. Very few games ever put the player in a situation where he has to choose, and none of the options are very palatable. Planescape: Torment was one :2thumbsup:

[Denizar]

I really liked the fact that:


The player will also receive demands or requests from other factions. These can come from individuals within the faction, seeking external help to further themselves within the faction, or from the faction as a whole.

So the heir of a faction can ask us to kill - assassinate the king, so that he can take the throne. I wonder if this is going to create a relationship not just between factions but between you and certain members of the factions too. So when you kill the king of an enemy faction, and the heir who gave you the mission succeeds the throne, will he become your ally, or at least neutral to you?

[Tamur]

So when you kill the king of an enemy faction, and the heir who gave you the mission succeeds the throne, will he become your ally, or at least neutral to you?

If he doesn't change his stance toward you after asceding, then those sorts of missions will be the first ones universally ignored. If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least ~:)

[Zatoichi]

If there isn't a reward beyond 2000 florins (or whatever), then some jobs simply are not worth it. To my assassins at least ~:)

Yep, my assassins won't get out of bed for less than 3000 florins...

[Kourutsu]

I wonder what missions the Templars will give you.

"Hey! You got a few thousand florins in store if you go kill Muslims. Or establish a bank. Either one is fine."

[Polemists]

based on a set of criteria, such as the best available target for the mission, time since this mission was last given, time in the game, the mission giver's attitude to the player, and the player's current assets (for example, money, available agents, and so on). The result is that the player gets an interesting set of varied, achievable, and relevant missions throughout the course of the campaig


i like this part alot myself. It shows me that this won't be like, "Attack greece where you have no men." It sounds like your going to get missions where you have resources, and capabilites and it will make sense.

Also for those of you wanting less missons. Keep in mind that while there might be penalties, there is no pope if your orthodox. I havn't heard if there is a council of nobles if your muslim, but I'm gonna doubt it.

So if you play one of the factions of Turks, Almohad, Egypt, then your only missions will probably be ones you want.

Also with guilds keep in mind only guilds you try to attract and build a chapter house for are going to give quests. If you never establish the merchant guild, they won't have power.

I like this alot as a economic mechanism beneath the game. Allowing a organized group of any kind, merchants, explorer's what have you. Gives you benefits but also allows them to have more poltical sway. On other hand if you never let them in your sole ruler, but you don't get there benefits.

In end though I agree with others, this isn't rome, the mission givers won't suddenly start giving you worse and worse ultimatiums as they think your gaining more influence. You are already the king. I assume like most people say if your people are ready to revolt, or if you defy the pope alot reprecussions will be more harsh.

II do like the whole heir ask you to help him idea. However I would keep in mind that so far while it looks better it does not look elaborate. Though only two missions are shown. Problems with in faction might be as simple as asking you to hel them take one of there rebel towns and giving you cash for it.

[Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett]

I'm not too sure about this, it depends how necessary it is I suppose. If taking missions is necessary for maintaining a stable country then I'll be less than impressed, this is the sort of managment I really don't like doing.
I found too much of my time in Rome was distracted away from miltiary logistics by worrying about whether or not my people had adequate access to public health or enough places to worship or enough population growth, or whether I was popular with the people, or whether I was popular with the senate. I'm just not interested in that and adding the worry managing my popularity with guilds as well is not excatly what I considor an improvment to gameplay.

Hopefully I'll be able to concentrate on my military in Medieval 2, like I could in MTW and STW, and these extra factors will simply provide a greater level of control for those who really want to get their hands dirty managing a country.

I though this was a wargame?

[econ21]

I thought this was a wargame?

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.

I suspect TW - maybe like the gaming industry in general - is moving more towards producing hybrids. The missions maybe take some features from RPGs. As a keen CRPG fan, I'm cool with that. In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).

[Martok]

IMO, TW games are fairly mainstream strategy games that happen to have a battle engine far better than nearly all wargames. Straight wargames are a niche market - all but gone from the high street shelves. But the CA team include people with backgrounds in hardcore wargames and they have brought in an awful lot of wargame-type modelling.
I concur with that as well. While I love the Total War battles due to how detailed & comprehensive they are (factoring in morale, weather, terrain, fatigue, etc.), I doubt CA has ever intended that to be the only focus of their games, even though it's highlighted as the series' centerpiece feature. Lots of people like building a kingdom/empire just as they like seeing thousands of troops in combat, and the TW games simply combines these two elements better than most--if not all--of the other titles out there.


In fact, I fantasise about the time when I can "possess" my general on the battlefield, Mount and Blade style. We're not that far away from that now (I tend to give orders to other units and then fixate a little on what my general's bodyguard is doing).
Ah, 'tis a consumation devoutly to be wished! :2thumbsup: I know that I--along with most of my friends that play Total War--have long hoped to such a feature. (A pity that Rise & Fall: Civilizations at War turned out so mediocre, as it had this ability.)

[Polemists]

While that feature might be impressive. Keep in mind I agree with others they do have to market the thing. First person adventure like that in Rise and Fall failed miserably. Then add infactor most solid war, or solid empire building games have died (thou Caesar is trying to make a comeback as is stronghold.) I think hybrids are the thing, the only way to bring a RPGER, a Startegy Gamer, RTS and Turnbased, and the Sim Builders together is to combine all the elements. If you dislike this combination I'm afraid to say I think it's only going to expand as time goes on. Don't be surprised if there's even more management in a expansion. just my thought.

[Tamur]

I don't know if anything will happen with Myrddraal's CA-questions thread, but I had asked specifically in that thread about RPG content in future TW engines.

This is an alive-and-growing debate in design communities. I see Penny's (and others') work on missions as a step along that path that will very likely lead to that oft wished-for feature of jumping into a general's boots in the battle engine. Dark Age of Camelot fans talk endlessly about the chaos of "large" battlefields there -- imagine the first-person chaos with fifteen thousand soldiers instead of fifty!

[Polemists]

Someone else may make it. However I have seen various posts on CA stating that for the next couple of YEARS, they plan to make turn based strategy games, which seems to imply not first person rpg action oriented game play.

[Martok]

Someone else may make it. However I have seen various posts on CA stating that for the next couple of YEARS, they plan to make turn based strategy games, which seems to imply not first person rpg action oriented game play.
Tamur was referring to having this as a feature *in* the Total War strategy games, not as a separate first-person RPG. ~:)

[Myrddraal]

Myrddraal's CA-questions thread
Keep your fingers crossed :smile:. No guarantees though.

[screwtype]

In principle, I think a mission-driven game could be very interesting and challenging. It all depends on how it's implemented doesn't it?

I also disliked the missions in RTW, because they could often force you into making a choice between war with a new faction you just didn't need, or the dreaded -$50,000 dinar penalty (or whatever it was, I never got hit with it, but I know some players complained about it).

I think they could do worse than borrow some ideas from games like Imperialism II. In Imp II, for example, if you are the favourite faction of a minor faction (through carefully built up trade relations, mainly), and that faction is attacked, you get the option of automatically adding that entire faction to your own empire, at the cost of war with the faction that declared war on the minor faction. And then, adding all that territory to your own faction not only gets you into war with the aggressor, but also increases your chances of other major factions getting pissed with your acquisition and declaring war on you as well.

Choices like that - difficult choices which require much careful consideration, but which are logically consistent - can add a great deal to a game in my opinion. What you don't want is a bunch of missions being thrown at you left right and centre by different parties in a totally random way. That would just be stupid and frustrating.

[screwtype]

I don't know if anything will happen with Myrddraal's CA-questions thread, but I had asked specifically in that thread about RPG content in future TW engines.

This is an alive-and-growing debate in design communities. I see Penny's (and others') work on missions as a step along that path that will very likely lead to that oft wished-for feature of jumping into a general's boots in the battle engine. Dark Age of Camelot fans talk endlessly about the chaos of "large" battlefields there -- imagine the first-person chaos with fifteen thousand soldiers instead of fifty!

I don't want to imagine it. I'm strongly opposed to this idea. Because you are not in my opinion describing a TW game. You're describing a game type that I would regard as totally different and incompatible with the TW paradigm.

TW is about battle tactics, not first-person RPG action. There are already a thousand games like that on the market. If that's what you want, I suggest you go and buy one of them, rather than demand that the unique TW system become just another version of what's already widely available in the marketplace.

[Bob the Insane]

While I think Screwtype is overstating it (thousands of games of that type...:laugh4: ) I do agree...

I also want to keep things higher level and not control individuals in the TW game... The abstracted RPG elements of the development of your generals is fun and adds to the atmosphere (and replayability) of the game.

The mission thing is something that needs to be carefully handled. Down right though it could really add a lot more depth to empire building portion of the game...

[Martok]

I also disliked the missions in RTW, because they could often force you into making a choice between war with a new faction you just didn't need, or the dreaded -$50,000 dinar penalty (or whatever it was, I never got hit with it, but I know some players complained about it).
Yeah, I really didn't care for the missions in Rome at all. It was very annoying to be playing the Julii and have the Senate tell me to go blockade Sparta, as I was almost always dealing with the Gauls at the time. (Besides which, shouldn't it be the Brutii's responsibility to deal with the Greeks, and not me? :inquisitive: ) Or to have the Senate tell me to attack Carthage (which should be the Scipii's job anyway). Or attack the Egyptians or the Selucids. It would be one thing if the Senate provided missions to each Roman family that made sense--i.e., Julii attack the Gauls/Germans/Britons, Brutii attack the Greeks/Macedonians, Scipii attack Carthage/Numidians/Egyptians, etc.--but they rarely did. :wall:


I think they could do worse than borrow some ideas from games like Imperialism II. In Imp II, for example, if you are the favourite faction of a minor faction (through carefully built up trade relations, mainly), and that faction is attacked, you get the option of automatically adding that entire faction to your own empire, at the cost of war with the faction that declared war on the minor faction. And then, adding all that territory to your own faction not only gets you into war with the aggressor, but also increases your chances of other major factions getting pissed with your acquisition and declaring war on you as well.

Choices like that - difficult choices which require much careful consideration, but which are logically consistent - can add a great deal to a game in my opinion. What you don't want is a bunch of missions being thrown at you left right and centre by different parties in a totally random way. That would just be stupid and frustrating.
Now *that* would be fun. I could totally buy into that sort of system. :2thumbsup:

[econ21]

Yeah, I really didn't care for the missions in Rome at all. It was very annoying to be playing the Julii and have the Senate tell me to go blockade Sparta, as I was almost always dealing with the Gauls at the time. (Besides which, shouldn't it be the Brutii's responsibility to deal with the Greeks, and not me? :inquisitive: ) Or to have the Senate tell me to attack Carthage (which should be the Scipii's job anyway). Or attack the Egyptians or the Selucids. It would be one thing if the Senate provided missions to each Roman family that made sense--i.e., Julii attack the Gauls/Germans/Britons, Brutii attack the Greeks/Macedonians, Scipii attack Carthage/Numidians/Egyptians, etc.--but they rarely did. :wall:

Strangely I tended to find the Senate missions were perfectly appropriate for my Julii campaign. They always set a target that was just within my grasp and often nudged me along a road I was already going (Gaul etc). I did not mind the blockade Greece/Carthage ones. I saw them just as a mechanism to make sure I was at war with the same enemies as the other two Roman factions.

Of course, what sold the missions to me where the chance of nice reward like a triarii (crumbs, they took long to build) or even better an exotic unit. :elephant:

[scourgeofrome]

In another thread started on this topic people wondered if you could get some missions from AI characters as well - that should have added tension to the game... Such as an unhappy heir willing to get at least something from papa's empire, before he gets 100 years old, and asking some help from you, The Masters of Assasins, muahahahaha...

:laugh4: .The assasins guild missions should be fun.

[Martok]

Strangely I tended to find the Senate missions were perfectly appropriate for my Julii campaign. They always set a target that was just within my grasp and often nudged me along a road I was already going (Gaul etc).
Then I envy you, econ. The missions I received always seemed pretty random. I did get the occasional mission that made sense for my chosen faction (conquer a Gaulish settlement as the Julii, capture a Carthaginian city as the Scipii, etc.), but overall that was pretty uncommon in my experience.


I did not mind the blockade Greece/Carthage ones. I saw them just as a mechanism to make sure I was at war with the same enemies as the other two Roman factions.
I can see the logic in that....and if missions like that had been limited to "blockade" only, I might not have minded so much. The problem is, I also received missions telling me to outright conquer Carthaginian and/or Greek cities as well. I still remember a Julii campaign where I was told to conquer Carthage itself, but the Scipii were already powerful enough to have done so themselves. Talk about your "WTF?!" moments.... :inquisitive:



Of course, what sold the missions to me where the chance of nice reward like a triarii (crumbs, they took long to build) or even better an exotic unit. :elephant:
I admit I found that to be pretty cool as well, at least in concept. Often times, however, all I received was a couple extra units of Histati or maybe Principes if I was lucky. The most exotic "reward" unit I ever received was a unit of Sammite Gladiators, and that was only one time.

[econ21]

I still remember a Julii campaign where I was told to conquer Carthage itself, but the Scipii were already powerful enough to have done so themselves. Talk about your "WTF?!" moments....

Given how bad the AI is at conquering - particularly when crossing water is involved - asking a human to do it is actually rather understandable. Is this is evidence of a self-aware AI? :laugh4:

[Martok]

Given how bad the AI is at conquering - particularly when crossing water is involved - asking a human to do it is actually rather understandable. Is this is evidence of a self-aware AI? :laugh4:
Heh. ~:) Believe me, the thought has occurred to me more than once (that I was assigned the mission because the AI-controlled families were incapable of carrying it out)!

After a while, I just started refusing to carry out missions like that. They always made me feel like I was working on one of those group projects back in high school, where all the other kids in my group were relying on the "smart kid" (me) to do most of the work for them. ~:rolleyes: I have no desire to repeat that experience with a computer game (albeit 15 years later). ~;p

All that said, if the missions in Medieval 2 are assigned in a way that's sensible and furthers your faction's agenda, I'll be happy.

[Polemists]

I realize some people want no penalties. However politics is part of the world and trying to play favorites is always a challenge of almost anyone. Guilds are only there if you build a guild hall, Pope missons only if you choose a catholic faction. So that leaves other factions and Council of Nobles, which as stated will be dependent on your assets, location, and other things.

Some of you may want them turned off completely but they are in game. So either wait for a mod or accept it.I don't see point arguing a feature that is in game and is only expanding. I mean it's more missons then RTW, so they seem to like pushing that way.

I always liked missons, I felt so bored as the barbarians cause other then odd battle here or there I felt there wasn't any real drive. No great empires, just bunch of half naked spearmen which cost a fortune. Rome factions at least I was trying to achieve Rome, there was something to actually achieve rather then a arbitrary 15(if you did short) provices with no real events affecting me in between.

Just my view.

[screwtype]

Now *that* would be fun. I could totally buy into that sort of system. :2thumbsup:

Well, what are you waiting for? Go pick up a copy of Imp II! It shouldn't cost you more than a fiver... ~:)

[econ21]

ImpII is an excellent game, but be advised it has nothing remotely comparable to TW's battles. (Then again, what game does?)

It does have a Risk-style campaign map, similar to STW and MTW. But if anything the AI is worse at fighting on it than STW and MTWs AI. Don't buy it if you want a wargame.

At heart, ImpII is a Civ-type game: research, build, expore, conquer. Where it shines is in reducing the micromanagement and in creating an a really tight economic model - you face multiple resource constraints, and surpassing them on hard is a enjoyable challenge. It also has a Civ-style competitive AI. Fear the Swedes. (Fear the Swedes?!? Nowadays that sound almost like "Fear Mother Theresa" or "Fear Kofi Anand").

ImpII is probably my favorite of the "strategic" strategy games (as opposed to the wargames like TW or tactical strategy games like JA2)

[screwtype]

ImpII is an excellent game, but be advised it has nothing remotely comparable to TW's battles. (Then again, what game does?)

Actually, I really like the battle system in ImpII. It's like a game of chess - very tactical, a single wrong step can be the difference between winning and losing.

The AI is in general very good at attacking - but not so good at defending. In fact it's clear when you've played it for a while that the AI is programmed to be a bit "dumb", especially in defence, which is fine if you're an intermediate player but not so good when you're an advanced player. All the same, I have fought countless really tough battles in ImpII that had me on the edge of my seat.


It does have a Risk-style campaign map, similar to STW and MTW. But if anything the AI is worse at fighting on it than STW and MTWs AI. Don't buy it if you want a wargame.

I don't agree with this either. I think the AI is remarkably intelligent in its strategic activity. It will attack you if are inadequately fortified; it will attack if you don't have enough troops or a big enough navy or a shortage of some particular resource; it will attack if you have a resource it is short of; it will attempt to starve you out by blockade; it will mount feint attacks; it will attack your best provinces when it can but others as the opportunity arises; it will attack in such a way as to force you to spread your defence as thin as possible; and it will synchronize its attacks to make it as hard as possible for you to defend against it.

It certainly isn't perfect - what AI is? - and over time you can learn to guess some its moves, but in general I'd say it's one of the best strategic AI's I've confronted in gaming.


At heart, ImpII is a Civ-type game: research, build, expore, conquer. Where it shines is in reducing the micromanagement and in creating an a really tight economic model - you face multiple resource constraints, and surpassing them on hard is a enjoyable challenge.

Well I certainly wouldn't describe it as "Civ-type" because I really don't like the Civ paradigm much and ImpII is one of my all time favourite games. But it does have some aspects in common, some of which you've pointed out here. There are some big differences though, as for example the tech tree, which in ImpII has numerous advances that are very well thought out and absolutely vital to survival, whereas a lot of the stuff in Civ is just filling. But the tightness of the economic model is certainly one of ImpII's strong points. It's also what turns it into a game, because it's remarkable how easy it is to win if you have some luck that enables you to expand and grow your economy early.

But yes, the economic side is very well balanced, and a major part of the challenge.


ImpII is probably my favorite of the "strategic" strategy games (as opposed to the wargames like TW or tactical strategy games like JA2)

I agree, but you could have added that with turns that can frequently last no more than a few seconds, it's got to be one of the most outrageously addictive "just-one-more-turn" experiences out there.

Okay, ImpII rave over :laugh4:

[econ21]

Actually, I really like the battle system in ImpII. It's like a game of chess ...

Maybe, but I'd argue that a game of chess is nothing remotely like a Total War battle. Total War has the whole historical realism thing going for it (whaddya mean, my castle can move ten squares?). Plus TW has the visceral real time action and the sound and fury of the gorgeous graphics etc. By comparison, Imp2's battles are a little sad - the fact that they are almost exclusively sieges says it all, really.


I don't agree with this either. I think the AI is remarkably intelligent in its strategic activity. ...It certainly isn't perfect - what AI is? - and over time you can learn to guess some its moves, but in general I'd say it's one of the best strategic AI's I've confronted in gaming.

It is far more predictable than STW and MTWs AI. Again, it's a little sad that it cheats but does so in a way that the player can exploit.

The AI "sees" your province's defences last turn, so you can shuffle one army between two provinces and pull off victory, after victory.


I agree, but you could have added that with turns that can frequently last no more than a few seconds, it's got to be one of the most outrageously addictive "just-one-more-turn" experiences out there.

Yes, that's something it has in common with the early game in Civ. The first few hours of either game are intense, as you desperately seek to explore, grab key resources, build, up tech and avoid being stomped by a belligerent AI. Imp2 keeps off the micromanagement overload and Imperial overstretch longer than Civ, although I think it does ultimately bog down when every faction has level 3 forts and level 4 tech armies.

[screwtype]

Maybe, but I'd argue that a game of chess is nothing remotely like a Total War battle. Total War has the whole historical realism thing going for it (whaddya mean, my castle can move ten squares?). Plus TW has the visceral real time action and the sound and fury of the gorgeous graphics etc. By comparison, Imp2's battles are a little sad - the fact that they are almost exclusively sieges says it all, really.

Yes, you can't compare ImpII's battle system to something as sophisticated as TW. I just wanted to correct any possible impression someone might get from reading your post that ImpII's battles can't be both fun and challenging. I've found them to be both.


It is far more predictable than STW and MTWs AI. Again, it's a little sad that it cheats but does so in a way that the player can exploit.

The AI "sees" your province's defences last turn, so you can shuffle one army between two provinces and pull off victory, after victory.

Yes, but the AI can do exactly the same to you, so it works both ways.

And I don't think it's so predictable. It still manages to catch me off guard often enough. Apart from which, the "cheat" you mention is often the only thing standing between you and crushing defeat, especially in the early to middle period of the game.

And I must say I've found STW/MTW to be at least as predictable, if not more so. For one thing, you often have only a handful of provinces you need to defend in TW, and it's obvious which province is going to be attacked (the richest one).

For another, the TW game engine frequently hobbles itself to attack or defend with just enough units to make it a challenge - except of course that as you improve, just enough ain't enough anymore. Also, TW shows little if any strategic intelligence. In MTW, it often does nothing for turn after turn, in STW the AI has so few choices it is incapable of suprising you.

In ImpII, the AI will attempt to utterly crush you, and will continue trying to grind you down unless you can either fight it to a stalemate for a number of turns, or else take a few of its provinces. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how much chance you've got of making peace when you can't muster the naval strength to defeat a blockade!

To tell the truth, I've usually found the TW AI to be quite somnolent by comparison.


Yes, that's something it has in common with the early game in Civ. The first few hours of either game are intense, as you desperately seek to explore, grab key resources, build, up tech and avoid being stomped by a belligerent AI. Imp2 keeps off the micromanagement overload and Imperial overstretch longer than Civ, although I think it does ultimately bog down when every faction has level 3 forts and level 4 tech armies.

I think the "endgame problem" is worse when you're new to the game. My first couple of games went to 2000 and 1966! But these days, I can sometimes close out a game by 1750, and it's a rare game that will go much past the 1850's. I generally try to win before the enemy can fully fortify, and by tech superiority, because once you get a bunch of level 3 forts with siege artillery, it can get a bit costly to grind them down.

But usually when you get to the end stage, I find you can forget about the economy anyhow because it runs itself. So I don't think there's anything like the micromanagement burden you're faced with in Civ, even in the endgame - especially since everything is so centralized.

But yeah, ImpII could be better here and there - what game couldn't? But it's one of the few games that the more I've played it, the more I've come to admire the thoughtfulness that went into designing it. Providing you incorporate a few iron man rules after learning the ropes, it really is suprising how much fun you can get out of this little gem. Of course, a game like this won't be everyone's cup of tea, but I think it's probably the best value $9.95 I've ever spent on gaming ~:)

[econ21]

To tell the truth, I've usually found the TW AI to be quite somnolent by comparison.

Have you played Shogun? I find the strategic AI to be ruthless. It cheats shamelessly, and unlike Imp2, does so by seeing your current move (not your last one) and reacts to it when it is supposed to be moving simultaneously. The result is that in Imp2 I can use 1 army to guard two provinces; in STW, I need two armies - both of them a match for one of the AIs! And given the STW economy, it's hard to get a 2:1 advantage over the AI.

I really struggle at Shogun, to be honest. The AI also uptechs and builds very well, so you struggle in the late game (Hojo horde).

RTW strategic AI is rather somnolent, I agree, and I really hope M2TW juices it up.

MTW is ok - like STWs, except it does not cheat so shamelessly. It is let down by its army composition and its inability to exploit trade. Some mods fix that though.

[screwtype]

Have you played Shogun?

Heck yeah, it's one of my favourite games, and definitely my favourite TW title. Unfortunately, it CTD's since I got XP :(


I find the strategic AI to be ruthless. It cheats shamelessly, and unlike Imp2, does so by seeing your current move (not your last one) and reacts to it when it is supposed to be moving simultaneously. The result is that in Imp2 I can use 1 army to guard two provinces; in STW, I need two armies - both of them a match for one of the AIs! And given the STW economy, it's hard to get a 2:1 advantage over the AI. I really struggle at Shogun, to be honest. The AI also uptechs and builds very well, so you struggle in the late game (Hojo horde).

That's true, but I've always disliked the cheating in STW/MTW. I hate the way the AI gets to decide what to throw into the battle right at the point of attack. And I hate the way it won't defend with everything it's got even then - just enough to make the battle "interesting".

But I'm suprised to hear you say you struggle with Shogun but not with ImpII, because it's just the opposite with me! Shogun is a bit of a cakewalk for me these days. I've probably only ever lost three or four campaigns (and yes, I always play on the hardest mode). With ImpII I've lost far more games than I can count, and sometimes deep into the campaign, dammit.

Mind you, I do play with quite a few iron man rules in ImpII which make a big difference. I'd have a little trouble describing them in detail here, but the most important one is probably not to trade at all with the majors unless I really need what they are selling. Which is to say, no trading just to improve relations. That can make things a lot tougher. Doing that, I often get attacked by as many as four majors by about 1600. And sometimes I have campaigns where I am almost continuously at war, for hundreds of years! You just defeat one power and that other swine will start up on you again. Much like the real history of Europe I suppose, LOL.

I've never tried playing Shogun with iron man rules. I know some guys try to beat it just with YA, but I'm too fond of my honourable YS and buddhist monks ~:)


RTW strategic AI is rather somnolent, I agree, and I really hope M2TW juices it up.

Yeah, it's an essential improvement IMO.


MTW is ok - like STWs, except it does not cheat so shamelessly. It is let down by its army composition and its inability to exploit trade. Some mods fix that though.

There are some things I like about MTW, but I've always found it to be just too big, too much of a handful. I always felt it was a game that outgrew its design origins. Something in between STW and MTW would probably have been ideal for my tastes.

[econ21]

But I'm suprised to hear you say you struggle with Shogun but not with ImpII, because it's just the opposite with me! Shogun is a bit of a cakewalk for me these days. I've probably only ever lost three or four campaigns (and yes, I always play on the hardest mode). With ImpII I've lost far more games than I can count, and sometimes deep into the campaign, dammit.

I confess I reload Imperialism II (and Civ games) to get a starting position I like. I think your starting position is even more important in Imp2 than in Civ. You can tell which factions are going to be serious just by looking at their starting provinces. Not having enough wood or hills etc just hamstrings you. What I like about both ImpII and Civ4 is the high wire act I play at the beginning - trying to maximise technological development, seize the best lands and invest for economic growth with a minimal army (butter, not guns, every time). It's great fun because the AIs in both games are absolute sharks and the more aggressive will go for you if you fall too far behind in military power. It can be cut short by the Swedes arriving with horse artillery, but it is extremely tense and fun.

Shogun I never really mastered. I found starting in the east too cut throat - whoever won early there, won big and I prefer slower boiling games. So I tended to choose more leisurely western expansion or even better the challenge of Oda. But I was not skilled enough to avoid encountering a late game Hojo horde and endless battles which exhausted me.

All this talk of Imp2 is making me want to fire it up again.

[screwtype]

I confess I reload Imperialism II (and Civ games) to get a starting position I like. I think your starting position is even more important in Imp2 than in Civ. You can tell which factions are going to be serious just by looking at their starting provinces. Not having enough wood or hills etc just hamstrings you.

Aha. Naughty. Very naughty ~:)

I have a completely different approach. I generally start with a difficulty level of somewhere between 360 and 400 (400 being the hardest of all settings). I don't often play at 400 though because it means having to set your opening military strength at the lowest level, and I find that trying to win from that position is usually just too much of a struggle.

But once I've set the diff. level, I take a very opposite tack to you. I pick the weakest faction, and often I will keep reloading the game until I get a particularly weak position. Basically what I look for is a faction that is critically lacking in one or more resources. (The hardest to recover from, I find, are usually countries with no wool).

So instead of looking for a good setup like you, I look for the worst possible setup and try to recover from it. Which I guess goes a long way to explaining why I find the game so much tougher to beat! ~:)


Shogun I never really mastered. I found starting in the east too cut throat - whoever won early there, won big and I prefer slower boiling games. So I tended to choose more leisurely western expansion or even better the challenge of Oda. But I was not skilled enough to avoid encountering a late game Hojo horde and endless battles which exhausted me.

I've beaten Shogun with every faction, and quite frankly, I've never really encountered the "Hojo factor" that so many people talk about. They're all much of a muchness to me. Generally the hardest bits I find in Shogun are not the other factions at all, but those darned rebel provinces. Some of them are diabolically difficult to subdue.

Mind you, I use the pause button a lot which makes things easier. I've played it the other way plenty too, but I just prefer to savour my battles rather than have to rush around trying to turn the tide.

I refuse to divulge my record on MTW however!


All this talk of Imp2 is making me want to fire it up again.

Actually, I was planning to fire up a new game just as you started to talk about it. But I ended up replying to a bunch of posts here instead. ~:)

[screwtype]

Oh but as for Civ - I quite agree. A bad starting position in that game is just not worth bothering with. You really need a good start in that one or it just becomes too hard.