GameSpot Designer Diary: Mission Design

[screwtype]

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

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

[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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.