Imperialism II and developers' folly

I've got this budget game called Imperialism II, which came out in 2000 and is now selling for under ten bucks.

I've been really enthusiastic about this game and wanting to tell the community how great it is, but I thought I'd better play a couple of campaigns right through to test it out and the result has been a bit of a disappointment.

For those who like a good strategy game, this one would seem to have it all. It has a complex economic model that really makes you work hard to develop your economy. The diplomatic model is in some respects the most realistic I've seen. It's not necessarily just a matter of conquering the New World, you can make friends with the Indians and/or the minor nations, and develop their goodies for them, reaping a percentage of the profits each turn, until eventually they may become willing to become part of your empire. You may want to do this if you don't have the cash or the military power to conquer them outright. The trading system is also quite complex, although a little too arcane for my taste.

Even the battles over provinces, though nothing like as complex as a Total War game, are kind of fun as you maneouvre up to 16 unit units on the battlefield to try and get the best of the enemy.

So where does the disappointment come in? Well there are two glaring problems with the game. Firstly the victory conditions. This is a game that gives you about six pages of variables you can set to tailor the difficulty level to your exact taste, yet somehow they have managed to leave out the most important option of all, which is the option to tailor your own victory conditions! Basically, the game is over when one nation conquers 42 Old World provinces.

Now the developers must have known the victory conditions were an issue because the manual says you only need 31 provinces to win, but the game itself requires 42. So it must have been a last minute decision to change them. But if they weren't sure what the victory conditions should be, wouldn't the obvious thing have been to let the player set them to his own taste?

The problem is exacerbated by the second major problem the game has, which is the stupidity of the campaign AI. In my current campaign there are only two superpowers, me and Sweden. I have 39 provinces already and only need another three to win the game. Now you'd think Sweden would be concerned it was about to suffer total defeat, and fighting like hell to stop me from winning, but instead, my relationship with Sweden is at the very highest level. We are the best of friends and there's no chance it will declare war on me. So I'm going to win again without the slightest problem.

I've been developing my economic and military power for days on end until I'm finally ready to challenge the mighty Swedish empire, and the Swedish empire is going to give up without a fight!

What a letdown.

I'm truly staggered to think how the developers could have gone to so much trouble to build such complexity into a game, just to leave the AI factions so dumb they won't even defend their interests when facing certain defeat. Again, if they'd given you the option to set the victory conditions to conquering ALL the provinces, this would not be such a problem. But taken together these two omissions make it really easy to win.

Of course, you can get around this problem to some degree by declining to take that last province, and just try to win by fighting it out militarily. But if the AI is too stupid to contest the provinces whose resources are critical to military power, the result is a foregone conclusion anyway. The only way to make a game of it then is to play with one hand tied behind your back, and limit the number of provinces you take. But where do you draw the line? That's an impossible question to answer.

I read an interview with the head of the development team that designed this game. He said there would never be an "Imperialism III" because consumers had shown they are not interested in buying complex games that simulate the real world. No, sorry buddy, don't try to blame the consumer, it's YOUR stupid fault for designing a strategic AI with the IQ of a potplant!

Sounds some what like RTW...

Similar in that both games have a poorly developed campaign AI. Although I think it would be harder to develop a smart AI for a game like RTW.

I don't really want to knock Imp II too much, I played it for several weeks before I started to become aware of its limitations, so I couldn't say I didn't get my money's worth. In fact, I'd still highly recommend it as a budget purchase.

It's just that, you know, when you finally start to master all the different elements of the game and are ready to fight to the death, you find that the enemy who once seemed so formidable is simply a mirage.

Perhaps it's just this particular campaign, that I happened to get lucky and be good friends with the other superpower, but the impression I get is that the bigger and more powerful you get, the *less* inclined the other powers are to challenge you, and it should be the other way around, they should be ganging up on any power which threatens to outstrip the others.

Anyhow, there's still hope for the game, because it has a multiplayer option for up to six players, and I'm inclined to think this could be a cracking good game if you're playing against humans rather than computer AI. So I'm looking into the idea of starting up a multiplayer campaign with a few other gamers. But I may want to play through a couple more singleplayer campaigns first.

Srewtype, have you ever played a game that you thought was satisfactory?

Well the same developers seem to have made more strategy/empire building games none the less. They all get 'average' ratings on gamespot, which I don't think speaks in their favour...

I've seen Imperialism 2 a lot in bargain bins lately, I was never quite interested in it. The box art doesn't appeal, and I don't like the name for some reason (it feels too much like civilization, making it look like another 'me too' game). But after your review I might pick it up if I find it cheap enough.

On a completely unrelated note, they were selling Red Alert for 3€ at the shop I was at today. The cheapest I've ever seen a boxed game, I reckon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

Srewtype, have you ever played a game that you thought was satisfactory?

---

Hmm, not sure what prompted this mongoose. I did say I'd got my money's worth from this game!

As for your question, I'm really not sure how you'd define satisfactory. I've certainly played games I enjoyed. But I've rarely played a game that hasn't been marred to some extent either by the presence of a bad feature or the omission of a good one.

Ah, OK. I was just asking because all of your reviews end with a negative point.I did miss the part about the game costing less then 10 dollars :book: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

I've seen Imperialism 2 a lot in bargain bins lately, I was never quite interested in it. The box art doesn't appeal, and I don't like the name for some reason (it feels too much like civilization, making it look like another 'me too' game). But after your review I might pick it up if I find it cheap enough.

---

Yeah, go and grab yourself a copy. It's definitely not a civilization clone, although there obviously are some similar concepts in any type of empire building game.

I've been playing it for about six weeks and I still have things to learn, so there's quite a bit of depth there. I can't deny I've had a lot of fun with it, in fact I've found it incredibly addictive, but I recognize a game like this will not be to everyone's taste. You can only find out by playing it, and for ten bucks you really can't go wrong.

If you do pick up a copy, come back to this thread when you've played it a bit and share your impressions.

Imperialism II is an example of developers' brilliance, not folly. It is a wonderful gem of a game - I periodically keep coming back to it as it is wonderful mix of a very streamlined design and a very challenging gameplay - think Civ2 without the terminal micromanagement. I really enjoy the first 100 years when you face a myriad of constraints - constantly hitting bottlenecks (iron, lumber, food, ships, soldiers, tin, riches etc etc) unless you plan ahead. It's about the only game I've played where the economy and the building are fun. The exploration and conquest are arguably rather secondary, although still nice.

On your two flaws, Screwtype, the victory condition point is a rather small one. The Total War games were also rather constrained and you can always give up if you are romping ahead (you can play on after victory, IIRC) although often the endgame is far from trivial as even weak powers can defined modern fortified provinces well.

As for Sweden not attacking you, I think that is a feature, not a sign of dumb AI. The designers deliberately did not want a very "gamey" diplomatic AI where the AI factions would gang up on the leader (as in Civ, IIRC) to stop you. They made it possible for you to charm your way to victory. In my opinion, it makes the game richer in diplomatic possibilities and more realistic. (Think US in the modern world). But tastes differ.

The AI does suffer from a couple of absolute killer AI flaws, but I won't mention them here as they are rather gamebreaking once you know about them. Nonetheless, it's pretty competitive. Pick the first faction you generate, play on hard and prepare for an uphill struggle.

I think it's terrible there will be no Imperialism II, I have not played a better game in its genre (TW is better, of course, but that's because of the battles).

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Imperialism II is an example of developers' brilliance, not folly. It is a wonderful gem of a game - I periodically keep coming back to it as it is a wonderful mix of a very streamlined design and a very challenging gameplay

---

Well I'm glad you've enjoyed it too Simon. I did say I've found it incredibly addictive - it's kept me up night after night to all hours of the morning.

My initial post in this thread was motivated mainly by the disappointment I felt after having spent several days building up my empire for a final showdown with the Swedish superpower only to realize it was going to let me win without firing a shot. I really felt cheated by that.

But I'm encouraged by your assessment of the AI as "richer and more realistic" than the ganging-up model I proposed, because it means perhaps all campaigns won't necessarily end like my last one in a whimper rather than a bang.

On the other hand, I'm intrigued by your mention of "killer AI flaws" because apart from those I already mentioned I haven't found too many flaws. Perhaps you are referring to the propensity for the AI to leave its capital cities poorly defended at times? In my last campaign as Portugal I was at war with Spain and my territory bordered his capital, but even though we were at war and I had numerous units surrounding the capital, the AI actually left it completely empty while it sent most of its troops on some trivial escapade in the New World. Even though this is a flaw, it doesn't bother me too much because it's an easy decision not to take advantage and attack the capital until you've conquered the other provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

- think Civ2 without the terminal micromanagement.

---

Yeah, I have to agree. There's still a lot of micromanagement in Imp II, but then there are also a lot of tactical decisions to make, because you have so many different options about what to do next. I don't know, I rarely seem to get bored building up my infrastructure in Imp II, although one does get frustrated sometimes at the snail-like pace with which your grand strategy seems to come together. But that's not quite the same thing as mere tedium, which Civ III from the midgame on offers up in spades.

I regard Imp II as a considerably better game than Civ III, and it sounds like you do too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I really enjoy the first 100 years when you face a myriad of constraints - constantly hitting bottlenecks (iron, lumber, food, ships, soldiers, tin, riches etc etc) unless you plan ahead. It's about the only game I've played where the economy and the building are fun. The exploration and conquest are arguably rather secondary, although still nice.

---

I LOVE the conquest part - conquest of the New World, that is. It's so much fun acquiring all those goodies! ~:) But yes, there IS a lot of planning to be done in the game, in fact in my last campaign I began to consider taking notes from turn to turn because of a tendency to forget important little projects here and there. Perhaps that's part of what makes the game interesting - that if you don't stay on the ball you can screw up your whole strategy by neglecting some vital piece of the puzzle. It's a little like chess in that respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

On your two flaws, Screwtype, the victory condition point is a rather small one. The Total War games were also rather constrained and you can always give up if you are romping ahead (you can play on after victory, IIRC)

---

Oh, you can? Heck, I didn't even consider that possibility. Well that's certainly an inducement to keep playing, I was just assuming the curtain would come down at 42.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

although often the endgame is far from trivial as even weak powers can defend modern fortified provinces well.

---

Hmmm, sounds like you've played this game quite a lot... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Pick the first faction you generate, play on hard and prepare for an uphill struggle.

---

I'm currently on about my fourth serious campaign and I've already cranked up the difficulty level to 228 and it's starting to get hard in the early game. I have no money at all and the other powers are streaking ahead in every way. In fact I'm thinking of chucking this one in as I have no horses and there's hardly a tile of tin in the entire world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I think it's terrible there will be no Imperialism II, I have not played a better game in its genre (TW is better, of course, but that's because of the battles).

---

I think I enjoyed Lords of the Realm II (Amiga version, not PC) better. But Imp II is a darned addictive game, I have to admit. And your comments on it have encouraged me to persevere and to see what other possibilities it has to offer. Thanks very much for the comments.

Quote:

---

which came out in 2000 and is now selling for under ten bucks.

---

Ussually, when a game has come out in 2000 and is selling for what is prolly £5, you shouldn't expect too much from it.

2000 sounds recent, but actually it's five years ago, which is a long time in computing terms.

Imperialism II is a good game, I have played it a lot. I think that strategically it is lot more complex and lot more enjoyable than RTW or MTW. Of course one cannot compare the tactical battles but on that given level they are fun and challenging. Technology matters a lot and it is very important to keep ahead or at least keep up with the others in the technological race. Considering that it is a 5 years old game I say that it is a good buy. I might even install it again ... ~;)

How would you say this game compares to EU2? They seem to have alot in common...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

How would you say this game compares to EU2? They seem to have alot in common...

---

From what I've seen of EU, it tries to be something of a historical simulation and at times this trumps the gameplay. By contrast, Imp2 is very much a game first and feels rather "gamey". For example, armies can teleport into surrounded provinces. As a historical simulation, this would be unacceptable but as a game it is arguably justified as it helps get a fairly good AI.

The best comparators with Imp2 for me are the Civilisation games. Like them, there is a lot of fun historical flavour but it is just flavour and not close to being a simulation. Where Imp2 shines - like Civ - is in creating a competitive solo game against the AI.

But the particular selling point of Imp2 IMO is how it minimises the micromanagement that plagues Civ. With Civ, you have to micromanage each city's economy and this gets onerous in the late game when you have dozens of cities. In Imp2, you have economy wide sliders for everything and need very few "agents" (builders & engineers etc) even when the empire is large so the micromanagement does not get excessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Imp2 is very much a game first and feels rather "gamey". For example, armies can teleport into surrounded provinces. As a historical simulation, this would be unacceptable but as a game it is arguably justified as it helps get a fairly good AI.

---

I have to disagree with that. I think it's overall a very good simulation as well as being a good game.

The "teleporting armies" feature is one that used to bother me too, to such a degree that at one stage I stopped playing because I felt it was too unrealistic. But when you think about it, given that each turn is a year in length it's really not so strange that armies can "teleport" anywhere from one turn to another. Also, you can only teleport armies from one continent to another so long as they start in a port, so it's not as though movement is completely unrestricted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

But the particular selling point of Imp2 IMO is how it minimises the micromanagement that plagues Civ. With Civ, you have to micromanage each city's economy and this gets onerous in the late game when you have dozens of cities. In Imp2, you have economy wide sliders for everything and need very few "agents" (builders & engineers etc) even when the empire is large so the micromanagement does not get excessive.

---

Yes, that's a very good analysis of why Imp2 is more fun.

I always enjoy the early part of Civ when you just have a handful of cities but after that it all becomes a bit of a chore. And the combat system in Civ is crap. Unfortunately it looks like they are more or less going to retain that system in Civ4, which will be a big disappointment. I was really hoping for something better in the next instalment.

Looks like a good buy for 10 dollars.

One more question: can you play a lan game without buying two copies?

Thanks :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoose

can you play a lan game without buying two copies?

---

The manual doesn't say whether you need more than one copy to play LAN (or over the net for that matter). So I guess the only way to find out is install the game on both machines and see how you go ~:)

Imperialism II homepage:

http://www.frogcity.com/imperialism2/index.html

not too much info but screenshots give you an idea about the game.

strategyplanet site, highly informative, great site:

http://www.strategyplanet.com/dailyi...imp2/index.htm


------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Spieth, Lead Designer at Frog City about Imperialism III:

"Personally, I'd like to design and help develop Imperialism 3. I see three roadblocks to overcome before this project could get underway.

1) Frog City, so far, has been a one product at a time development house. Right now we are quite busy. This moves the potential Imp3 project into the future into a time when Frog City expands or has no other project going on.

2) Frog City and Gathering/Take 2 do not have the rights to publish a game with the name Imperialism 3. These rights are held by the legal successors of the publisher of Imperialism 1 and 2.

3) To obtain a financial and marketing/sales go-ahead on this kind of project there would have to be a showing that either:

a) a traditional somewhat intellectual strategy game can appeal to a large number of people (much larger than would be indicated by sales of Imp 1 and 2) -or-

b) That Imperialism 3 could be made very cheaply to appeal to a niche hardcore gamer audience.
-or-

c) Imperialism 3 is designed as a totally different sort of game. Fast-paced, 3D, and real-time are the buzz words that might gain attention.

The final roadblock is actually the most significant. I'd strongly prefer to design a sequel that is true to its precursors. On the other hand, I don't believe a good, deep, strategy game can be made on a tiny budget. So that leaves us with the idea of proving the vialbility of a more or less traditional strategy game in the mass market. In my experience this is a hard sell.
All this said, I'd love to work on the game and I appreciate the interest of those gamers who remain dedicated to Imp1 and Imp2.

Bill Spieth
Lead Game Designer
Frog City "

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheetah

c) Imperialism 3 is designed as a totally different sort of game. Fast-paced, 3D, and real-time are the buzz words that might gain attention.

---

GAH! Shades of RTW. If they want to design a game like that, that's their business, but don't pretend it's a sequel to Imp2!

Thanks for the links Cheetah. I might mosey over there and take a look.