Imperialism II and developers' folly

[screwtype]

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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...

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!

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.