Imperialism II - Still holds up
Bob Perez
micromanagement, end-game stall and lack of tactical control offered by the
Civ type games, and the simplistic (albeit fun) model used by many of the
popular TB tactical titles (HOMM, AOW, etc), I found that I really
appreciate the depth, easy management and excellent production values
offered by this under-appreciated gem. What a great game, timeless.
Bigfoot
"Bob Perez" <b...@planetperez.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:a52dem$465jl$1...@ID-109358.news.dfncis.de...
Yes. I wonder when there will be a Imperialism 3.
Bigfoot
lane
"Bob Perez" <b...@planetperez.com> wrote in message
news:a52dem$465jl$1...@ID-109358.news.dfncis.de...
If you like that game then you might like PatricianII, can be had for cheap
at EB now.
David Short
> | micromanagement, end-game stall and lack of tactical control offered by
> the
> | Civ type games, and the simplistic (albeit fun) model used by many of
the
> | popular TB tactical titles (HOMM, AOW, etc), I found that I really
> | appreciate the depth, easy management and excellent production values
> | offered by this under-appreciated gem. What a great game, timeless.
It's a very, very good game. I wish they had put a touch more
thought into the interface. It's all very pretty, but I find myself
chucking the mouse around the screen to open and close windows.
Lower right, Upper left, Bottom middle....
You can use the windows cut and paste buffer with a " 1" in it
to simplify the trading interface.
The simulation crowd was put off by the teleporting troops.
Those are nits. It's a fine game.
> Yes. I wonder when there will be a Imperialism 3.
They (Frog City) did Trade Empires. It was not well
received. It was recently offered for $15 at gogamer.
dfs
Hank
wrote:
You realize, of course, that you blaspheme when you say such a thing
..
H
Gorka
Bigfoot <jy...@eurosport.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
bW3d8.40$lj4....@news.get2net.dk...
Imperialism II) really amazing. Quite complicated in fact, but great games.
The only thing I miss in these games are game editors. It is a pity they
have never been popular. I am triyng now to find pages related to these
games but it is really hard to find something. If you know any good site
about them please tell me.
Gorka
lane
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
news:3c7528cb...@netnews.attbi.com...
> You realize, of course, that you blaspheme when you say such a thing
> ..
>
> H
Why? I've played Imperialism (not 2) and I've played PatricianII, they are
both good.
Bob Perez
"David Short" <David...@Wright.Edu> wrote in message
news:a53751$46tmp$1...@ID-63350.news.dfncis.de...
> It's a very, very good game.
Yes, love it more every time I go back to it. I missed out on it originally,
and after reading rave reviews of the gameplay here, picked up a copy from a
usenet player for $5 with the strat guide (one of the few that was really
really good, like they used to be).
> The simulation crowd was put off by the teleporting troops.
Yeah , I agree this is a silly nit. "Realistic movement" is one of the
things that turns me off about the civ type games. I remember when I picked
up CTP2 the first thing I did was alter all the unit text files to triple
the movement ratings of all units. I hate having to take 800 turns to cross
a screen ... what fun is that? Yes, I know that the logistics of
mobilization are a part of the strategic mission, and yes that does make the
game more "realistic", but that same sim crowd doesn't put up much of a
stink about the lack of realistic rudder controls on flight sims because it
would be no fun modeling that in a game that's supposed to be fun. At some
point every game compromises realism to some extent to facilitate the fun
factor. Imperialism II made a great decision here, IMO.
LPetrazickis
news:a52dem$465jl$1...@ID-109358.news.dfncis.de...
After playing EU 1&2, Imperialism II's primitive province control system
became intolerable for me.:(
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Bob Perez
"LPetrazickis" <SPAMSuxpet...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:BC_d8.1104$hu5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> After playing EU 1&2, Imperialism II's primitive province control system
> became intolerable for me.:(
I tried liking EU1 but never quite enjoyed the feeling of dropping into the
middle of a historical game where things were already underway. Felt like I
was playing someone else's saved game. I like Imperialism II's more
traditional create-a-random-map and strart from scratch approach, letting me
build up my initial forces, economy, etc. Has EU2 improved in this manner or
is it more of the same?
Hank
wrote:
If I may jump in here ... EU2 is really much better than EU. You
have control over any country you want without editing or using a
utility ... which is a big benefit ... and you now have 'policy
sliders' for everything from free trade/mercantilism to a
narrow-minded/innovative culture. What this does is allow you to
tweak your society so that if you like going to war, you can gear
toward offense ... or you can become a naval power, or whatever you
want. With so many countries and so many ways to tweak them, the
only reason you would feel like you're playing the same game twice is
because you choose to play it the same way twice.
There are some factors that will always be the same, of course ... in
1419 France is always in the same place, etc. There are probably
utilities to randomize that too ( there was a randomizer for EU that
did it as well ) so you could have France in China or something.
H
LPetrazickis
I'll go with "more of the same". Did you try playing a minor in EU1?
Leons Petrazickis
import java.lang.disclaimer;
Bob Perez
"Hank" <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote in message
> If I may jump in here ... EU2 is really much better than EU.
<snip>
Hmm, sounds like some nice improvements, although it doesn't seem they go to
the issues that I had with the game. These are purely my issues, btw, I
don't think it's bad game design, just not something that appeals to me.
I'll take fantasy over simulation in most cases. In this respect,
Imperialism II hits the spot for me with a perfect compromise between utter
fantasy and ultra-realism.
Bob Perez
> I'll go with "more of the same". Did you try playing a minor in EU1?
Yeah I got the game as soon as it came out and vaguely remember having to
edit some files to play the campaign with the minor of my choice. I'll admit
I didn't spend enough time with it to give it a fair evaluation. I was
thinking of firing it up again actually but got sucked up in Imperialism II
(again).
sb
I agree with the lot of you. It's a great game and I recently picked
it up again. I'm playing at level 200-something just to see how
dificult the start can get before I crack :)
Back when ImpII was released, there was no intention to do a #3. Ben
Polk went off to other tasks. Since then a number of mergers and
aqcuisitions have occured, that I can't keep track of. So I don't know
what the status is, but to sum up, I find it unlikely that there will
ever be a #3.
It is sad, btw. that there are almost no webressources for this game.
All one can find oficially is a number of the useless gamereviews. SSI
used to have a link to my webpage, but that has been reorganised away.
It's nothing special actually, but to those who bother it's:
www.geocities.com/pentagon/9116
If anyone has anything for/about Imp or ImpII they think should be
made available, I'd love to host it (I have too little time to do much
about it myself).
sb
lane
>but that same sim crowd doesn't put up much of a
> stink about the lack of realistic rudder controls on flight sims because
it
> would be no fun modeling that in a game that's supposed to be fun.
What do you mean by "lack of realistic rudder control in flight sims"? Most
flight sims have realistic rudder control.
Bob Perez
"lane" <race...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a5dksi$6dtbk$1...@ID-131135.news.dfncis.de...
> What do you mean by "lack of realistic rudder control in flight sims"?
Most
> flight sims have realistic rudder control.
I'm not a pilot, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I
recall reading that the pressure of a real rudder control is something that
has to be managed by a real pilot, but isn't modeled accurately in flight
sims. The example is just that, an example. The point is that there's a
point in game design at which realism needs to be subordinated to just plain
old fun, and that point varies from product to product. In a flight sim
you've got to stay closer to reality, in an arcade shooter it's ok to find
powerups and magic health bars. Games like Imperalism II straddle the line
between fantasy and historical simulation. I like the choices they made,
even if it is true that "teleporting troops" aren't possible.
Bob Perez
> I agree with the lot of you. It's a great game and I recently picked
> it up again. I'm playing at level 200-something just to see how
> dificult the start can get before I crack :)
Wow, 200 is impressive. I'm still struggling along at Normal mode (100). I
like playing with the complex models for food and luxuries, it forces me to
develop my economies more carefully. Not sure why they give the computer
player a "Large" advantage in New World exploration under Normal, though.
The computer is a *bitch* already ... ;-)
> Back when ImpII was released, there was no intention to do a #3. Ben
> Polk went off to other tasks. Since then a number of mergers and
> aqcuisitions have occured, that I can't keep track of. So I don't know
> what the status is, but to sum up, I find it unlikely that there will
> ever be a #3.
I got a nice email from Ben the other day. I hate to abuse the courtesy by
bugging him with all sorts of questions about Imperialism, but I sure hope
there's a chance we could see a 3. When you consider how popular games like
Civilization have become, I have to think that there's market potential for
an Imperialism III, given the right approach to a broader audience.
> It is sad, btw. that there are almost no webressources for this game.
Yea, I found that very surprising. I can still find sites for a lot of other
older games, but this great game yields up hardly any. There is Slap's site:
http://strategygames.net/games/Imperialism2/Imperialism2Frames.htm
And there's this interesting AAR:
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/imp2_aar.asp
and now I have your site bookmarked too, thanks!
Ethel the Ardvaark
> I got a nice email from Ben the other day. I hate to abuse the courtesy by
> bugging him with all sorts of questions about Imperialism, but I sure hope
> there's a chance we could see a 3. When you consider how popular games like
> Civilization have become, I have to think that there's market potential for
> an Imperialism III, given the right approach to a broader audience.
Imperialism is an excellent example of game design. Multiple elements
(trade, diplomacy, military) in one game without being overwhelmed.
An interesting concept might be to have the Imperialism game engine
adapted to a fantasy setting. Of course, I'm one of those people
waiting and wishing for a good sequel to MOM.
lane
> I'm not a pilot, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I
> recall reading that the pressure of a real rudder control is something
that
> has to be managed by a real pilot, but isn't modeled accurately in flight
> sims.
Sure it is, to a degree. Use a stick with a twist handle or rudder pedals
and you have rudder control, all it does is move the tail rudder left or
right. Aerodynamics and physics modelling determine wether it is modelled
correct or not in a flight sim. Most modern fighter jets only use manual
rudder at low speeds anyway, at faster speeds it is controlled by the
fly-by-wire system.
CurtAdams
>An interesting concept might be to have the Imperialism game engine
>adapted to a fantasy setting. Of course, I'm one of those people
>waiting and wishing for a good sequel to MOM.
Try Dominions: www.illwinter.com
The Imperialism engine has enormous promise for a fantasy
setting. If the various resources were materials for spells
- given the demonstrated possibility of competent AI in
that model - oh my, what a killer. I'd love to see a more
flexible development model, albeit only if the AI could adapt.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
sb
> > Polk went off to other tasks. Since then a number of mergers and
> > aqcuisitions have occured, that I can't keep track of. So I don't know
> > what the status is, but to sum up, I find it unlikely that there will
> > ever be a #3.
>
> I got a nice email from Ben the other day. I hate to abuse the courtesy by
> bugging him with all sorts of questions about Imperialism, but I sure hope
> there's a chance we could see a 3.
Can you perhaps tell us if there was anything new in that message from Ben Polk?
sb
Logiman
Wow. I didn't know so many people loved this game as much I do. I
still think it's the best turn-based, wargame-like strategy game
around (I throw in that "wargame-like" because it's hard for me to put
Imp II in the same category with X-COM, which I think is the finest
game of *it's* kind around).
At the risk of getting flamed, last time I looked Imp II was available
for free download on Underdogs. The copy there works too. I know,
since I got it to replace the CD I lost (I swear. The only game I ever
lost, and one of my all time favorites...)
I'll also second the good word somebody put in for the strategy guide.
It's one of only a bare handful that actually contains useful
information, and it contains a lot. I still read it from time to time
to see if I can pick up any hints I might have missed the first
hundred times through.
Bob Perez
> the pressure of a real rudder control is something that
> > has to be managed by a real pilot, but isn't modeled accurately in
flight
> > sims.
> Sure it is, to a degree.
Yeah, but "to a degree" means not fully represented. I'm not talking about
missing rudder control, I'm talking about compromises that leave out some
representation of reality because it would not be fun to include in a game.
There are better examples (the economy in MMORPGs comes to mind), this was
one that occurred to me offhand. I should have said "sometimes isn't modeled
correctly", I was really thinking of just one example that I recall from the
past.
> Use a stick with a twist handle or rudder pedals
> and you have rudder control, all it does is move the tail rudder left or
> right.
You're talking about rudder left and rudder right in general and on modern
jet aircraft where rudder control is less significant. The example I was
thinking of concerns specific instances where side effects were not
accurately modeled in a sim because of the tedium it would cause. Take an
early vintage helicopter, for example. Because of the reality that the back
rotor is facing in one direction, there is constant compensating force that
needs to be applied in the opposite direction in order to remain stable. As
I said earlier, I'm not a pilot or an expert on flight sims, but I do recall
reading on usenet and CompuServe that many of the popular flight sims did
not accurately model this characteristic just because it would be a bitch to
have to keep up the pressure. I think it's a good compromise, and it
illustrates the point that sometimes it best to leave some technical realism
out in the name of fun.
Bob Perez
"Ethel the Ardvaark" <postm...@beoutdoors.net> wrote in message
> Imperialism is an excellent example of game design. Multiple elements
> (trade, diplomacy, military) in one game without being overwhelmed.
Agreed, it's superb design. Has far more "just one more turn" potential and
caused me more sleepless nights than any TBS I've played in a long while.
There is a fair amount to learn in terms of details and concepts, but once
they are learned (and here the manual and strategy guide are both very good)
it's amazing how incredibly simple the interface is for managing this
enormous breadth of options. Even at the late end-game stage, I never feel
overwhelmed or unable to follow things. Indeed, by then things get simpler
as the number of opponents whittles down and lines are drawn in the sand.
> An interesting concept might be to have the Imperialism game engine
> adapted to a fantasy setting. Of course, I'm one of those people
> waiting and wishing for a good sequel to MOM.
I've had the same thought occasionally. MoM does come to mind and what a
great vehicle this engine would be for that effort! Maybe it's because I
miss MoM that I've started playing it again ... hmmm.
Bob Perez
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020225180300.21057.00000761@mb-
> Try Dominions: www.illwinter.com
Not much information on that site, I'll try following some of the links.
Sounds interesting, thanks. Have you actually played it, and if so can you
comment on the gameplay?
Bob Perez
"sb" <sb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> Can you perhaps tell us if there was anything new in that message from Ben
Polk?
Afraid not, Ben's message was a polite expression of appreciation for some
of the things I've said about the game here. He related an anecdote about
playing the AI players against each other trying to minimize stupid
behaviors, but no hints about current or future plans. :-( I was very
tempted to write back and ask about plans, but I figured if he wanted to
discuss them he would have mentioned something... Ben, if you're reading
this, please feel free to chime in with any news. ;-)
Bob Perez
"Logiman" <jn...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bc1269ba.02022...@posting.google.com...
> Wow. I didn't know so many people loved this game as much I do.
Yea, the game doesn't get as much talk anymore because of its vintage, but
it still holds up very nicely on all counts (gameplay, graphics, sounds,
general atmosphere). It's a classic, old style TBS, with a solid, detailed
manual that you will carry around and read everywhere, and a nice lean
profile that works as well on my laptop as my desktop.
> I still think it's the best turn-based, wargame-like strategy game
> around
Based on my current obsession, I'd have to agree. ;-) One of the things that
probably limits its market potential is one of the things that I also like
about it: games are epic in scope and even at the Easy level take many hours
(days) to play. It's incredible how well the game develops without bogging
down into excessive micromanagement. Most aspects of the game are dealt with
on a sufficiently global basis so that you're easily able to focus on the
big picture. But it takes a real committment to play this game.
(I throw in that "wargame-like" because it's hard for me to put
> Imp II in the same category with X-COM, which I think is the finest
> game of *it's* kind around).
I hear you. I don't think of either X-COM or Imp II as "wargames" yet both
involve combat in a greater context. Both are outstanding turn based games
that have managed to weave a grand strategic campaign with a fun tactical
engine and a backstory that contributes successfully to the mix. Although I
think X-COM was far more accessible, I put Imperialism II in the same
category of gaming goodness. ;-)
> At the risk of getting flamed, last time I looked Imp II was available
> for free download on Underdogs.
I bought my copy from a fellow usenet member for $5, and I feel like I've
cheated someone. If I ever see it in a computer store, I'll buy my own
original copy (although the one I got was in pretty good shape).
GameCopyWorld has the latest patch and a no-CD patch as well and they both
work well. I haven't tried the underdogs version, but I hope more people
will experience the game and create some demand for a sequel or adaptation
using the game engine.
> I'll also second the good word somebody put in for the strategy guide.
> It's one of only a bare handful that actually contains useful
> information, and it contains a lot. I still read it from time to time
> to see if I can pick up any hints I might have missed the first
> hundred times through.
Yep, it's an old-style strat guide with actual strategies. ;-) The first 3/4
of the guide focuses on providing the inside scoop on game fundamentals
(with liberal doses of real opinions, like "don't build this unit", "start
researching this technology as soon as you can", that kind of thing). Real
advice, very well-written and well-thought out reasoning. The latter 3
chapters provide guiding principles for:
a) Initial development of your empire;
b) The Golden Era of expansion once your infrastructure is in place; and
c) The End game - achieving Victory.
A far cry from the current crap that sells as strategy guides, and another
good reason to get this game.
Fred Weber
<snip>
> > I'll also second the good word somebody put in for the strategy guide.
> > It's one of only a bare handful that actually contains useful
> > information, and it contains a lot. I still read it from time to time
> > to see if I can pick up any hints I might have missed the first
> > hundred times through.
>
> Yep, it's an old-style strat guide with actual strategies. ;-) The first
3/4
> of the guide focuses on providing the inside scoop on game fundamentals
> (with liberal doses of real opinions, like "don't build this unit", "start
> researching this technology as soon as you can", that kind of thing). Real
> advice, very well-written and well-thought out reasoning. The latter 3
> chapters provide guiding principles for:
>
> a) Initial development of your empire;
> b) The Golden Era of expansion once your infrastructure is in place; and
> c) The End game - achieving Victory.
>
> A far cry from the current crap that sells as strategy guides, and another
> good reason to get this game.
>
>
Where can I get a copy of the strat guide at this point? I've loved this
game since I got it, but have never got very good at it and would love to
see some detailed strategic advice. Thanks!
Fred
CurtAdams
>> Try Dominions: www.illwinter.com
I've only played a few games. Very entertaining; really captures the
"how does this work" and "gosh, how much is in here?" aspects of
MOM. Has some serious micromanagement issues, supposedly as
its designed for play-by-email where people don't mind long turns.
The AI is pretty bad - but that's like MOM too ;-)
Logiman
> probably limits its market potential is one of the things that I also like
> about it: games are epic in scope and even at the Easy level take many hours
> (days) to play. It's incredible how well the game develops without bogging
> down into excessive micromanagement. Most aspects of the game are dealt with
> on a sufficiently global basis so that you're easily able to focus on the
> big picture. But it takes a real committment to play this game.
Add to this the fact that the AI is so damned good you don't need
multiplayer in order to make the game fly. I think
people--particularly developers--forget how necessary good AI is for a
strategy game, since not everyone (perhaps not even very many) wants
to play with other humans. I look at games like Deadlock II, which was
a gem in so many ways, but had braindead AI that turned it into one of
those games you load up hopefully from time to time praying that it
somehow improved while sitting on the shelf. Anyway, Frog City should
have bottled Imp II's AI and sold it separately; they would have
gotten rich.
> I hear you. I don't think of either X-COM or Imp II as "wargames" yet both
> involve combat in a greater context. Both are outstanding turn based games
> that have managed to weave a grand strategic campaign with a fun tactical
> engine and a backstory that contributes successfully to the mix. Although I
> think X-COM was far more accessible, I put Imperialism II in the same
> category of gaming goodness. ;-)
I agree. I just meant that somehow, even though they're at heart the
same general kind of game, it's hard to think of them that way :)
> > At the risk of getting flamed, last time I looked Imp II was available
> > for free download on Underdogs.
>
> I bought my copy from a fellow usenet member for $5, and I feel like I've
> cheated someone.
An update. I went and checked Underdogs after I posted this, and the
game's been taken down. They now have a link to some UK online store
where people can buy it.
Bob Perez
"Fred Weber" <ss...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Gs64w...@world.std.com...
> Where can I get a copy of the strat guide at this point? I've loved this
> game since I got it, but have never got very good at it and would love to
> see some detailed strategic advice. Thanks!
I would check eBay, that's where I found my copy. It's called Imperialism
II, Official Strategies and Secrets. Author is Michael Rymaszewski, Sybex
ISBN 0-7821-2554-9. I did a quick search just now and didn't see it offered,
but didn't look closely and there were about 10 copies of the game
available. My guess is that one of them will include the strat guide, or a
more complete search will produce it.
Good luck!
Bob (no, I won't sell mine :)
Logiman
> game since I got it, but have never got very good at it and would love to
> see some detailed strategic advice. Thanks!
The guide was published by Sybex. I imagine they still sell it direct,
so I'd check their website.
I was in the same boat as you are until I got that guide. It was worth
every penny.
Bob Perez
Every time I read through it I learn something new. As I was thumbing
through the guide to answer Fred's question, I picked up on something I
hadn't previously noticed: If you hold down the control key while choosing a
subsidy for a trade partner, the game will automatically apply the right
level of subsidy required to become the Most Favored trading partner. Neat!
Pinnace
>
>
> Every time I read through it I learn something new. As I was thumbing
> through the guide to answer Fred's question, I picked up on something I
> hadn't previously noticed: If you hold down the control key while choosing
a
> subsidy for a trade partner, the game will automatically apply the right
> level of subsidy required to become the Most Favored trading partner.
Neat!
Interesting thread!! Inspired me to re-install the game and play.
First game - messed up the economy by recruiting workers before providing
the necessary food. Abandoned.
Second game - this time making a controlled expansion, balancing
construction against production and pop to food - going much better now.
Looking forward to playing on this weekend.
At the moment I think I like Imp2 better than EU2 because:
1. I like games where you start with nothing much and build up your economy
and infrastructure.
2. There's something to do every turn. In EU2 if you aren't fighting a war
you can spend a lot of time sitting and watching the gold total grow so you
can afford to build troops for the next war.
3. The random maps. In Imp 2 the new world is blank and you have no idea
what new world countries exist and where the resources are. Adds that
thrill of exploration, you dont see the gold/silver/jewels until you
prospect for them. In EU2 you know what's out there because it's a real
world map. It is historicaly accurate but lacks the "spirit of
exploration".
EU2 scores on it's detail and historical accuracy and the pausable real time
flow of the game works nicely. Europe zoomed out in political view looks
just like a page out of a history book - I love history books.
ps. found the Strategy Guide for $7 on Amazon zShops, $11 with shipping, so
reasonably cheap.
Simon Appleton
strategy book - they are great (the book is especially surprising as the manual
is very good too; often the book is a substitute for a decent manual). I think
Imp2 is one of my all time favourite 3 strategy games. The others would be
X-Com1 and JA2. Because of their RPG/tactical war aspects, the other two have
more flavour than Imp2 but for streamlined, nail-biting gameplay and challenge,
Imp2 is great.
Simon
Lord Data
b...@planetperez.com says...
>
> Every time I read through it I learn something new. As I was thumbing
> through the guide to answer Fred's question, I picked up on something I
> hadn't previously noticed: If you hold down the control key while choosing a
> subsidy for a trade partner, the game will automatically apply the right
> level of subsidy required to become the Most Favored trading partner. Neat!
For those in the UK who might be interested, the strategy guide can be
had for very cheap here: http://www.omnibooksuk.co.uk/viewbook.asp?
productID=1401
Ben Polk
> "David Short" <David...@Wright.Edu> wrote in message
> > The simulation crowd was put off by the teleporting troops.
>
> Yeah , I agree this is a silly nit. "Realistic movement" is one of the
> things that turns me off about the civ type games.
To be fair, the complaints were about the way armies could teleport
across giant oceans even when you had sunk all of their ships. I
actually agree that it would have been better if you could restrict an
army's mobility across water by using your navy.
It would not have been hard to modify the rules to do this, but
unfortunately it would have been very hard to make the computer
players deal with this well. We made the decision to not tweak the
game in ways that would greatly hurt the ability of the computer
players to compete, and this one on example of the tradeoff.
Roderick
is if it works on WinXP? Also where can I get the patches?
Thanks,
Roderick
Simon Appleton <simon.a...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in
news:3C7F85A0...@nottingham.ac.uk:
Pinnace
"Roderick" <roderick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91C4B7B506181ro...@24.28.95.158...
Bob Perez
"Ben Polk" <ben...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> To be fair, the complaints were about the way armies could teleport
> across giant oceans even when you had sunk all of their ships.
Ahh, I see. Having missed the introduction of the game I missed a lot of
this kind of discussion. I can see how it could have been better to put such
restrictions on movement but not, I think, at the cost of making the AI less
competitive. Seems like a good trade off to me, although I have no idea what
the "teleporting troops" criticisms cost you in terms of credibility and
sales. The game isn't for everyone, the learning curve is probably such that
the target market is the very same audience that's likely to complain about
"teleporting troops".
> We made the decision to not tweak the
> game in ways that would greatly hurt the ability of the computer
> players to compete
And I'm glad you did. The competence and competitiveness of your AI is one
of the things that has kept me coming back to this game.
Hope you're considering Imperialism III ...
Bob Perez
"Pinnace" <pin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:y9Jf8.8543
> Interesting thread!! Inspired me to re-install the game and play.
Seems we're not alone. I'm glad to hear there's still an Imp2 audience out
there, would love to see some interest in bringing the game back into the
mainstream (in this connection, I wonder how well that worked for Merchant
Prince...)
> At the moment I think I like Imp2 better than EU2 because:
>
> 1. I like games where you start with nothing much and build up your
economy
> and infrastructure.
Yeah, that was a major point for me. The response I've received here when
I've commented on this is "it's a historical sim, you shouldn't be playing
it if you don't like that approach". And they're right. So I don't play it.
;-)
> 2. There's something to do every turn. In EU2 if you aren't fighting a
war
> you can spend a lot of time sitting and watching the gold total grow so
you
> can afford to build troops for the next war.
Excellent point, there is no need for an accelerated time option because
you're never skipping turns waiting for the clock to run.
Fred Weber
Thanks to all for your suggestions re Strat guide, I may find myself
ordering it from the UK! Looks like the copy/copies on zshops is gone at
this point...I'm glad I'm not the only fan :)
F
"Lord Data" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e9eaf5f...@news.clara.net...
Bob Perez
> is if it works on WinXP? Also where can I get the patches?
I'm running it on XP, so the answer is YES. You can get the patch to 1.03
and the NoCD patch for 1.03 as well on GameCopyWorld, probably other places
also.
Lord Data
it picked my curiosity, so I bought the game for cheap and we'll see how
it goes.
I haven't bought the strategy guide yet so I don't know about their
stock levels, but if there is anybody in the US who is interested in
getting it from the UK I'm willing to help.
In article <GsBux...@world.std.com>, ss...@world.std.com says...
Pinnace
My opinion is that it is historically reasonable as well as being good for
game play.
After all back in the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's was it even possible to
maintain a 100% blockade for a continuous year (1 turn in game)? Therefore
allowing 100% blockade would be unrealistic and not the other way around!
Back in the Napoleonic Wars the English were totally dominant at sea and the
French still managed to send armies (e.g. to Egypt) and regiments to West
and East Indies quite frequently. A storm would blow up and the blockading
fleet would retreat out to sea for a few days, the contained ships slip out
and disapear into the wide oceans. And that was with early 1800's naval
tech and not 1500/1600's.
It might look like "teleporting" but in fact it just representse the sieve
like blockade permited by the technology levels of those eras.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Perez" <b...@planetperez.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Imperialism II - Still holds up
>
> "David Short" <David...@Wright.Edu> wrote in message
> news:a53751$46tmp$1...@ID-63350.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> > The simulation crowd was put off by the teleporting troops.
>
> Yeah , I agree this is a silly nit. "Realistic movement" is one of the
> things that turns me off about the civ type games. I remember when I
picked
> up CTP2 the first thing I did was alter all the unit text files to triple
> the movement ratings of all units. I hate having to take 800 turns to
cross
> a screen ... what fun is that? Yes, I know that the logistics of
> mobilization are a part of the strategic mission, and yes that does make
the
> game more "realistic", but that same sim crowd doesn't put up much of a
> stink about the lack of realistic rudder controls on flight sims because
it
> would be no fun modeling that in a game that's supposed to be fun. At some
> point every game compromises realism to some extent to facilitate the fun
> factor. Imperialism II made a great decision here, IMO.
>
>
>
Martin Leslie Leuschen
Nice to see you around, Mr. Polk.
: To be fair, the complaints were about the way armies could teleport
: across giant oceans even when you had sunk all of their ships. I
: actually agree that it would have been better if you could restrict an
: army's mobility across water by using your navy.
IIRC, you had that restriction in IMP I.
: It would not have been hard to modify the rules to do this, but
: unfortunately it would have been very hard to make the computer
: players deal with this well. We made the decision to not tweak the
: game in ways that would greatly hurt the ability of the computer
: players to compete, and this one on example of the tradeoff.
I agree with the decision you made. IMP II is one of the few
strat games I never dialed the diff to the max, but still like
to play the AI. It can present a serious challenge *without*
needing outrageous, disgusting, in your face advanages [1] that
ruin WSOD.
Regards,
martinl
[1] OK, with only a few of those. ;)
sb
It should be taken into consideration what a large timespan every turn
represents. Under normal circumstances it would not make sense to
demand that troops be send by ships with the usual ship-movement
allowance. It would make cross-atlantic jorneys last years, which is
even more unrealistic.
Anyway, I know of no multiplayer centers for this game anymore. They
have closed down. Does anyone know any active ones?
(need I mention that this is the reason why ImpII should have had some
kind of pbem support?).
sb
Bob Perez
"sb" <sb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message > >
> Anyway, I know of no multiplayer centers for this game anymore. They
> have closed down. Does anyone know any active ones?
I sure don't, but I've thought a lot about it. I'm wondering if Imp2
multiplayer would be fun. The problem, of course, is the huge amount of time
that each turn can take. I don't know about you, but I agree with the author
of the strategy guide, in Imp2 you spend a lot more time *thinking* than
*doing*. This is a good thing, I love having the freedom to consider every
move carefully and patiently. I think that in a multiplayer game the
pressures to end the turn and move on will diminish a lot of the fun. I
can't imagine a 6 way multiplayer game...
> (need I mention that this is the reason why ImpII should have had some
> kind of pbem support?).
That sounds like the perfect solution, this game SCREAMS out for PBEM
support. If Space Empires IV ever fixes their PBEM support like they
announced I'll probably go back to playing that again (if they have fixed it
and I just missed the announcement, someone please let me know).
sb
> > kind of pbem support?).
>
> That sounds like the perfect solution, this game SCREAMS out for PBEM
> support. If Space Empires IV ever fixes their PBEM support like they
> announced I'll probably go back to playing that again (if they have fixed it
> and I just missed the announcement, someone please let me know).
It became a standard joke in the end between Ben Polk and me about the
pbem. I used every occasion to press for it, but he says that it's
technically impossible. We'll just have to take his word for it.
At a different matter, I tried multiplayer (LAN) and it's actually
much disappointing because tactical battle is not an option. So all
battles are resolved automatically and they develop A LOT differently
than with tactical battles. Ie. in tactical battles you can with 100%
success take out a single gun fort with one horse artillery, one
cavalry and one other unit. You can't in a big number of cases without
tactical battle.
It sometimes becomes absurd. In one case I attacked a one-gune fort
with a few artillery and like 8 cavalry. Defender had just a general,
but won anyway.
I believe tactical battle was dropped from multiplayer because it was
believed to take too long time AFAIR. I don't understand why it
couldn't be left to the players to decide.
sb
PS: do note the option for multiplayer via multiple instances of
ImpII. I believe it is described somewhere in the FAQ.
Pinnace
> support. If Space Empires IV ever fixes their PBEM support like they
> announced I'll probably go back to playing that again (if they have fixed
it
> and I just missed the announcement, someone please let me know).
>
How long ago were you last looking at it?
Current multiplayer options are
1. The PBW server at http://seiv.pbw.cc which automates passing around the
files and the host admin.
2. SE4 Gold has just shipped and that includes TCP/IP support for on-line
play in addition to the PBEM support.
The PBW server works very nicely. I installed SE4 Gold about 2 hours ago
so don't know how good the TCP/IP will be.
CardinalT
>
> I believe tactical battle was dropped from multiplayer because it was
> believed to take too long time AFAIR. I don't understand why it
> couldn't be left to the players to decide.
Designers should leave all those options in and simpy tell the player: "The
default setup is the way we think the game is most balanced and the way we
think it should be played. *That* is our design. However, if you want to
tweak the game by changing options, feel free. Just realize it may unbalance
the game, make it play slower, etc..."
Bob Perez
"Pinnace" <pin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Byzh8.62455
> Current multiplayer options are
>
> 1. The PBW server at http://seiv.pbw.cc which automates passing around the
> files and the host admin.
Oooooo nice. Thanks for the reference. Been a long while since I played this
great game. I now have reason to go back to it.
> 2. SE4 Gold has just shipped and that includes TCP/IP support for on-line
> play in addition to the PBEM support.
I'll go place my order now. I too was waiting on TCP/IP play. Is there a
comparable matchmaking service for TCP/IP players on the website?
CurtAdams
They didn't just "drop" multiplayer tactical. The current interface only
copes with one player at a time. Frog City would have had to write a
multiplayer interface. Given the extreme limitations of multiplayer
tactical, they took a pass.
Pinnace
>
> "Pinnace" <pin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Byzh8.62455
>
> > Current multiplayer options are
> >
> > 1. The PBW server at http://seiv.pbw.cc which automates passing around
the
> > files and the host admin.
>
> Oooooo nice. Thanks for the reference. Been a long while since I played
this
> great game. I now have reason to go back to it.
Today the PBW site has been suffering some technical problems so you might
have to try a few times to connect. Yesterday evening I couldn't connect, a
couple of hours later it was working and could and sent in a move, and now
it's not working again at 5.35am EST. Hopefully back soon.
>
> > 2. SE4 Gold has just shipped and that includes TCP/IP support for
on-line
> > play in addition to the PBEM support.
>
> I'll go place my order now. I too was waiting on TCP/IP play. Is there a
> comparable matchmaking service for TCP/IP players on the website?
Not that I now of yet. I will be watching the http://www.shrapnelgames.com
web board to see how this develops.
sb
> card...@helpmejebus.com writes:
> >"sb" <sb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:99ca96f2.02030...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> They didn't just "drop" multiplayer tactical. The current interface only
> copes with one player at a time. Frog City would have had to write a
> multiplayer interface. Given the extreme limitations of multiplayer
> tactical, they took a pass.
>
All there had to be done was to exclude AI from the opposing side.
Then substitute in the opponents move. Actually multiplayer input is
more simple than making an AI opponent.
As I remember it, this was just one of several instances where Frog
City had to cut a toe in order to meet the deadline. And there's no
money in going back to do the tweeks. Perhaps *IF* it becomes
freeware/abandonware some day.
> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
> "It is better to be wrong than to be vague" - Freeman Dyson
Great, I won't feel so bad if I'm wrong about the above then :)
sb
Bob Perez
"CurtAdams" <curt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020308030020.28430.00000457@mb-
> They didn't just "drop" multiplayer tactical. The current interface only
> copes with one player at a time. Frog City would have had to write a
> multiplayer interface. Given the extreme limitations of multiplayer
> tactical, they took a pass.
I don't understand this point. The game as it stands supports multiplayer
tactical, two players at a time. One is the computer, the other a human.
When there is contention for the same province between more than 2 parties,
initiative resolves who gets to attack and the loser of that decision is
"pre-empted". All they had to do was allow the computer player to be played
by another human player and the same system could have been used.
Again, I suspect the reason was simply that allowing tactical battle in
multiplayer games would have made the waits between turns unbearably long
and really diminish the multiplayer experience for everyone. Imagine 6
players all waiting for each one of the battles to resolve for each
player...
CurtAdams
(re multiplayer tactical in ImpII)
>All there had to be done was to exclude AI from the opposing side.
>Then substitute in the opponents move.
Which means they have to write in an input system. More importantly,
they have to modify the tactical code to include constant communication
between the two computers; right now there's a once-off communication
at the end of each turn and that's it. Interactive communication over
an arbitrary communication system is not a trivial task.
It's probably not a vast amount of work. But it is something extra;
they didn't just drop it. Given the expected return on MP tactical
(virtually zero) I'm not surprised they didn't pay to add it in.
Rob...@slingshot.co.nz
> I've been playing Imperialism II again lately. After tiring of the
> micromanagement, end-game stall and lack of tactical control offered by the
> Civ type games, and the simplistic (albeit fun) model used by many of the
> popular TB tactical titles (HOMM, AOW, etc), I found that I really
> appreciate the depth, easy management and excellent production values
> offered by this under-appreciated gem. What a great game, timeless.
Players of any of the Frog City games are most welcome to join the small group of us enthusiasts on the wiki - imperialism.wikia.com - which now has over 350 articles and plenty of scope for more. Registration on a wikia site is free and has several advantages for logged-in users.