Why I think Imp2 is a far better game than EU

[Steve Clark]

I've been wanting to write this up for some time now, so before I post it to the EU forum, I want to try it out here...

Over the past year, I have heard talk about comparisons/features from Imperialism II as they might apply to EU and Civ3. I finally picked up this title and have been playing it for couple of weeks now. IMO, Imperialism II is a far better game than EU (and one that perhaps Civ3 is moving towards). With both games covering the exact same period, here are my reasons in saying that Imp2 is better than EU:

1. Imp2 has a resource/trade model where resources mean something. EU has just a Center of Trade with specific commodities not really meaning much.

2. Imp2 has a clearly understandable resource productions (e.g., 1 tin + 1 copper = 1 bronze). EU has, ummm, a Center of Trade and taxes.

3. Imp2 has a clear unit-building model where you know the cost of building. EU has units that just appear.

4. While both games have a cost of war, Imp2 costs are clear where EU costs are vague, not to mention an awkward attrition model.

5. Imp2 has a clear cause and effect Technology Tree. EU can research technology buts its effects are vague.

6. Imp2’s combat model clearly shows the benefits of having specific units and how they would be used tactically on a battlefield. EU just has two units fighting with a vague idea of how and why the results come to be.

7. Imp2 is consistent as to the level of micro-management (e.g., all units are transported the same way). EU has various levels of unit micro-management from the nebulous adding of merchants in the CoT to the needless detail of boarding units on ships.

8. Both maps are of similar scale even though EU covers a greater extent and has more provinces. Imp2’s provinces, however, are more detailed (like a Civ2 map).

To be fair, there are two areas where EU is much better:

1. EU’s Religion model is revolutionary and very clever. Imp2 has no religion model.

2. While Imp2’s Diplomacy is perhaps the best for a TBS game, EU has added more depth to it.

As I have said when we were talking about EU here when it first arrived in the US, I prefer a more measurable model when playing a game of this nature. EU’s vagueness in its presentation and use of resources/units/technologies does not suit my strategy game style. I didn’t know it at the time, but Imperialism II was the game that I wanted EU to be.

[SnowFire]

Well, a lot of your complaints can be answered with "that wasn't the focus of the game." I'm GLAD that EU didn't have a hyper-advanced resource system, and forced everybody (even Austria and Poland and other traditionally non-colonial powers) to go hunting for tobacco and furs in the New World.

EU's costs aren't vauge. If you declared war, you lose stability which knocks down your incomes. When you're at war, every dollar spent raising armies is, well, a cost.

As for Imperialism II... well, I liked the idea, but that game turned out to be somewhat unplayable at higher levels. Frankly Imperialism I for all its flaws had a more workable system. Flaws:

-Your economy is run almost completely off of gold. If you don't discover any in the New World, tough luck, because trading gets you almost no money at all. This is a stupid and counterfactual way to run an economy.
-the AI CHEATS! I wish that in the custom button there was a way to scale the cheating up such that the AI cheats less early on and more later, because the result in Imp II is always either you get crushed at the beginning (couldn't find any gold, now somebody declared war on you) or you dominate the game (you found your gold and had enough time to build up a bit, so one someone attacked you, you got their territory instead, and after that since you're larger than all of the other nations, the game is a cakewalk from then on out).
-Speaking of wars, they are highly irritating to run- you can always, always retreat. So let a rouge group of peasant levies with movement speed 3, and your 3 armies of knights can chase them forever but will somehow never catch up, meanwhile the territories in the New World keep on chaning colors due to this damn rouge army. The end result is I find myself save-reload cheating in cases where I have a border larger than one territory- my army always just happens to be in the right spot, because otherwise, especially if my army is superior (and would hence induce a retreat), things get way too annoying later on.
-And oh yes. The Diplomacy system in Imp2 was hideous, I'm sorry. I'm not saying that it's much better in EU, but it is better. For starters, there is absolutely no reason to be nice to the Indians, it is always better to conquer. Secondly, alliances, well, never mind.

I really liked some parts of Imp 2, but the fact that all you needed was some well-protected mines to have a large stream of money was annoying. The trading in Imp I had its odd bits, but it was a better way of working it than in Imp2.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One main (and the most important) difference for me? Imp2 wasn't fun and EU is. I must have played a few games of Imp2 before putting it down and saying what a waste of my money... fortunetly I got it cheap.