Imperialism - any good?

MidKnight Lament · May 1, 2000, 22:13

Whenever the topic of trade comes up, someone will mention Imperialism. How good is it? Is it worth me checking out?

My flatmate just got into a bit of Colonization, and we having a bit of fun with it. What similarities are there b/w Imperialism and Colonization?

- MKL

Seeker · May 2, 2000, 01:47

It is very good, especially for multiplayer, and you will see many things which should be in Civ.

Caution: do not pay too much for it, once you've mastered it, the game is sorta easy.

Bad things: The AI sometimes ignores obvious openings. The tactical mode is bad for large battles. Arms economies are the best, you cannot create a textile or lumber economy. Once you build a big arms industry, you will find you can create demand by attacking people, thus arms are an infinite money generator (eventually). If you just want to win, make a few allies and then forget about diplomacy, it is much easier to achieve military victory.

Sign of doing well: the human player should always have the highest internal transport. This is the most important stat.

St Leo · May 4, 2000, 21:42

Imperialism is one of the best games ever released. It has deep, engrossing gameplay that will pull you in.

I would recommend I over II - II has a brilliant (aka not as stupid) military AI, but downgrades the economic model and does not have any real historical scenarios.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

MidKnight Lament · May 4, 2000, 23:43

I had a rather quick look in a couple of computer shops when I was buying the Planetary Pack, but couldn't see either of them. I probably wasn't looking hard enough though. How old is Imperialism I now? What are my chances of picking it up pretty cheaply?

- MKL

John-SJ · May 5, 2000, 09:42

MKL,

I haven't seen it in a store for awhile, it came out in mid-'97, but it looks like Chips & Bits still carries it. Check it out at www.cdmag.com - the "Chip & Bits" link is at the top of the page.

John-SJ

May 5, 2000, 18:25

I also play Imperialism sometimes, but I haven't ever become very good. I always play "beginner" and have economic problems in 1820-1840, anyway.

I recognized that bug:

You are nation A, and there are 6 others, e.g. B, C etc.
When you are allied with B, and B is allied with C, and C declares war on you, then B will ALWAYS hold its alliance with C and ALSO declare war on you.

That can lead to worldwide conspiration against you only because of a minor nation you want to protect. This is the only bug i really hate. It's the reason why I sometimes don't like Imperialism. I hate it to be attacked from all sides in the early game. And this will always happen

Seeker · May 6, 2000, 02:32

That NEVER happens to me. Why are you protecting Minor Powers? The 'diplomacy victory' is for suckers. Conquer all the neighbouring minors, and Ally with ALL the great powers (through gifts). Your problem must be gold. You should have about 25, 000 in 1840, and 65, 000 in 1860. The secret?
A huge arms economy. How to do that?

Stockpile coal!! Learn how to stockpile, then sell massive amounts (via paddlewheelers) when the market goes up.

May 8, 2000, 14:37

Single question:

Has anyone ever tried out the scenarios? I think they're unplayable on a special way...

1820: like a normal game

1848: I played with Prussians, all others declared war against me in early 1850's. Happened several times

1882: Played with Germany. In 1885, the British had a diplo victory. Happened several times.

Are the scenarios unplayable with the recommended nations or am I just too bad ?

Seeker · May 8, 2000, 23:50

Don't play them like a normal game on a random map. You WILL have to give massive (10 000) gifts every so often to the other powers to keep them from ganging up.

Go SLOWLY. If you're attacking Paris in 1885, everyone will be against you.

St Leo · May 9, 2000, 16:41

1848: I played with Prussians, all others declared war against me in early 1850's. Happened several times

I recently played a similar game. Me (Prussia), Sardinia, France, and Russia had divided Austria among us. Suddenly I find myself at war with everyone, but decide to weather the storm. I quickly take out Paris after taking a detour through Belgium, eliminating an important opponent. Meanwhile my navy has been built-up and Baltic was liberated from the evil Brits. I then quickly transfer my army to the eastern front and race for Moscow - once it was mine the game was a walk in the park.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

Adam_Smith · May 16, 2000, 00:50

So does the multiplay always crash. I tried it a few times and it did every time. I quit playing it even though it is better than the second one.

KaiserIsak · May 19, 2000, 09:19

I used to play with Sardinia on the Unification Moment scenario, and it worked quiet well. I´ve been able to get a victory once on that one, but useally the english gets the victory early.

The only way to survive is to declare on Austria the first turn, then England will ALWASY asist u after a few turns. U gain a lot of territory from austria and then build up industry when u r conquering small powers like naples, spain/portugal/catalonia, greece, switzerland and such.
I useally get involved in a war against france because of my allies and gain some terrain from them as well.
But i would never been able to do it without English help in the start.

May 19, 2000, 17:24

Well, I for myself had never tried to play a conquering game until I played the Unification scenario with the English. VERY EASY, even for me

.

But I'm still bad. I play on "beginner"-level and get in financial and economic problems. That's not nice, I can tell you. Neither to get in economic problems, nor to be that bad, nor not to be accepted by other people.

Seeker · May 20, 2000, 02:10

Andz;

you haven't learned how to build an arms econmomy. You can go the whole game with a production of 1 clothing, but you should always have a massive stockpile of +200 steel to keep your economy in the +50 000 range (where you can fight overseas wars against great powers)

May 20, 2000, 15:18

Well, my problems is nót a general economic crisis but a crisis in the 1820s and 1830s.
During the 1860s I have a boom and in 1880 my money amount is about 1.000.000$.
The highest money I ever had was 30.000.000 in 1915, when I had a diplo win.

My earliest diplo win was in 1825!! Who among you, if he ever actually had a diplo win, had done this mark? Diplo win in 1825, fellows!

KaiserIsak · May 23, 2000, 05:01

Im not sure when i did it, but i did it on the first council of govenours. I just pumped large amout of cash into aid, and won easily.

May 23, 2000, 14:46

KaiserIsak: I did it without (direct) financial support

May 23, 2000, 15:08

My German Imperialism 1.1 Patch doesn't work anymore. It worked several times, but now, after one further re-installing of imperialism - it wouldn't work. Can anyone give me an URL where I get patches ALSO for the German version?

Eternal · May 25, 2000, 01:02

I'm so glad to finally see a discussion about this great game! I'd be playing it more than Civ if SSI had been wise enough to make it customizeable.

My brother has been tinkering around with the scenarios and saved games using debug for months now (and boy are they a mess- One wonders if SSI knew what they were doing)- I'm only a average player, but I never lose with dreadnoughts and railroad guns in 1820! We are also working on a new scenario taking place just before WWI- unfortunately, you can't start a scenario with fortresses, and niether the Central Powers nor the Allies want any piece of each other! But it is fun.

KaiserIsak · May 26, 2000, 17:12

Yeah, this game is really great.
Would anybody like some multiplayer with me? Ive never tried that before, but it could be fun.

February 13, 2001, 16:35

Is still anyone up for Multiplaying Imperialism?

Can you recommend Imperialism II? I played the demo, it appeared OK, just the industrial management seemed a bit off...

hellrazor · February 13, 2001, 20:08

I played Imperialism multiplayer a long time ago, but had a lot of problems getting it working. It was very difficult to get it synched up especially when you don't have compatible modem speeds.

I also played Imperialism II. The economic system is a little different, but not bad once you get used to it. The game focus shifts slighly from trading with colonies to conquest of the new world. It's very important at the highest difficulty levels to get in quick and conquer new world terrritories before the other european powers grab all the best land and the native units get too strong. The tactical combat system is somewhat improved and the technology system is much better...you now spend money on research and can use spies to hurry it up.

Overall, I liked both games. I thought Imperialism II was more challenging at the hardest difficulty levels. I had one game where I was safely ahead of all the other powers, and then started spending more money than I was bringing in. I wasn't paying attention, and eventually got so in debt I couldn't get out without going bankrupt...my interest payments alone ate up my entire budget. It was quite a bummer because I had the game won otherwise.

Henrik · February 14, 2001, 08:53

I love both Imp 1 and Imp 2. They are really different games though, in imp1 it is about economy and industrialization and imp is about conquest and trade, the value of food is increased dramiticaly in imp2 since there wasn't any canned food in the 1600's. They are both great games, really great.
An both simulate the time they are portraiting very well. Still, if one like one of them, one is bound to like the other one too.
BTW
I conquered the world as germany (or was it preussia) in one of the scenarios (well almost the entire world, I hadn't time for Russia, but all other contries where either collonies or simply crushed).
Imp 2 is much harder however, which is why I still play it from time to time (it might be something I'm missing).

weird god · February 14, 2001, 12:37

both imperialism I & II are great! don´t miss it, check it out!!

Eternal · February 15, 2001, 03:06

I still haven't bought Imperialism 2. Is Imperialism 2 multiplayer like Imperialism? Is there a tactical battlefield in MP on Imp2?

Currently I only MP with my brother over our network at home, but I'd love to get in a game with you folks when I can. I will attempt to swollow your souls.

Also, I would be remiss not to mention my Imperialism site with the tools and new scenarios:

http://www.geocities.com/societyeternal/

Henrik · February 17, 2001, 10:11

Frog Army is also an imperialism site that is worthy of mentioning: http://fa.geosoft.org

Dr Strangelove · February 27, 2001, 22:16

I can't say that I have much use for Imperialism. The battle screens are overly simplistic, and very repetitive. There are what, about 3 or 4 different maps? When I was playing the game I used the same tactics to win every battle. Always be liberal with the artillery. Bring enough heavy artillery to knock a corner of the wall down, then work your way towards the other end, or use some cavalry to draw fire, then move forward enough light artillery to clear one edge of the enemy's position of heavy artillery, then move your heavy artillery in close enough to decimate the other units. It never failed and it became too easy. If only there had been more variety and a smarter AI I might be still playing the game.

Eternal · February 27, 2001, 22:42

And for God's sake, NEVER let the computer handle your battles. "Otto" is totally incompetent!

The sad thing is that in Multiplayer you can't even use tactical battles, which means you DAMN WELL BETTER brings some artillery. And also feel free to bring some units useless in regular practical terms -such as gaurds/grenadiers and saboteurs/combat engineers.

Henrik · March 2, 2001, 08:51

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove on 02-27-2001 09:16 PM
I can't say that I have much use for Imperialism. The battle screens are overly simplistic, and very repetitive. There are what, about 3 or 4 different maps? When I was playing the game I used the same tactics to win every battle. Always be liberal with the artillery. Bring enough heavy artillery to knock a corner of the wall down, then work your way towards the other end, or use some cavalry to draw fire, then move forward enough light artillery to clear one edge of the enemy's position of heavy artillery, then move your heavy artillery in close enough to decimate the other units. It never failed and it became too easy. If only there had been more variety and a smarter AI I might be still playing the game.

You obviesly haven't played Imperialism 2...

Dr Strangelove · March 2, 2001, 12:27

quote:

Originally posted by Henrik on 03-02-2001 07:51 AM
You obviesly haven't played Imperialism 2...

When Imperialism 2 hit the shelves I asked around about the battle screens. My impression was that they weren't much different from Imperialism 1. If I was wrong, please inform me otherwise. How many different types of maps are there?

If I recall from Imp 1 there was a plains map, a hilly map and a city map, each of which could be modified by the defender's level of entrenchment or fortification. The defender lined up on the right side, usually with his artillery in front and his infantry and cavalry in the back. Artillery was usually placed with the light artillery in front and the sides, with the haevy artillery just behind and in the middle. The trick was that I could usually get some of my heavy artillery down to the lower screen close enough to hammer the wall and the enemy's infantry and light artillery on that side. After pummelling that side of the screen I'd use fast light scouts to draw the fire of the center, then move my artillery en masse to a position where in a single move I'd neutralize the center of his artillery. After that, if he has a lot of cavalry or infantry he'd charge, but it would be too late. Without artillery cover he would rarely get very many men into firing range.