a bargain gem: Imp 2

lord of the mark · June 19, 2003, 20:39

Found Imp2 at EB for $5 US. Well it was used actually, but it runs, and it came with manual and tech tree.

St Leo · June 19, 2003, 22:45

In case you can't find the patch, it's available on SLeague.

MattyBoy · June 22, 2003, 23:51

Just bought it new in Melbourne for US $7-8

lord of the mark · June 25, 2003, 08:52

im really getting into it - its pulled me away from SMAC

Strong one more turn syndrome.

To be fair to SMAC, im coming off heavy Civ2 overload, Imp2 is more of a different game - yet is more in the historical genre i prefer (not that i dont like the SMAC backstory)

Andemagne · June 25, 2003, 22:42

my local game stores sells this for 15€.

War4ever · June 26, 2003, 23:31

LOTM tell me how it is...i am curious!

lord of the mark · June 27, 2003, 09:42

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
LOTM tell me how it is...i am curious!

compared to what? SMAC? Civ? Imp1?

War4ever · June 27, 2003, 17:10

actually compared to any of those will be just fine....

but compared to civ i guess since its the game i love

Mongoose · June 27, 2003, 23:44

Imp 2 is a great game! It ought to be in the collection of any TBS fan.

You absolutely must patch it. IIRC, without the patch , there is a random event (rats) that all but crashes the game.

Replay value is high. There is one map I played that just doesn't work right...no fur anywhere, so the branch of the tech tree that goes off of furtrapping can never be discovered. Otherwise, no map related problems. AI is decent. Graphics are definitely dated. Intrerface is fairly good...couple of hiccoughs, as I recall.

There are hundreds of hours of good ol' TBS fun to be had with this game. It was easily worth the cost when I paid full price when it was released. At the prices you have been discussing here...LOTM is right on the money...a bargain gem.

lord of the mark · June 30, 2003, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Mongoose
Imp 2 is a great game! It ought to be in the collection of any TBS fan.

You absolutely must patch it. IIRC, without the patch , there is a random event (rats) that all but crashes the game.

crashes in what sense? technically or gameplay?

I had that happen in my current game - it was a setback, but not fatal, as i didnt have huge food stockpile. Now that its happened, im hoping it wont happen again soon (of course if this is a purely random occurence im engaging in a fallacy to so hope) and will start rebuilding food stockpile.

Historically, of course rats dont make sense - they were an endemic (on-going) problem, not an occasional occurence. So im interpreting this as a drought, that forces me to use up grain reserves to avert famine.

lord of the mark · June 30, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
actually compared to any of those will be just fine....

but compared to civ i guess since its the game i love

Versus civ 2:

No happiness model, no internal politics. An abstraction to be sure, but not as much so as in other periods (this is the age of absolutism after all)

Diplomacy is not funny and entertaining as in civ - but its important, subtle, and as far as i can tell at this point, fairly deep. Im France, and have alliances with Sweden and Spain, im struggling with Holland for political influence in Germany and Switzerland - the tools are non-aggression pacts, trade, and subsidies.

The economy is realistic and deep - yet less micromanagement than Civ2. To build units i need more or less realistic resources - Cloth + metal + wood plus manpower for an infantry unit, all of the above plus horses for cavalry and horsedrawn artillery, all of the above (not the horses) including lots of wood for boats.
Paper for civilian professionals like engineers and spies. To get the resources i have to use labor to convert raw materials. I extract raw materials from improved terrain - but i need transport access to THAT terrain (or adjacent) . If the access is by land all i need is the road - its assumed that carts, etc are ubiquitous. By sea i need ship capacity. Ship capacity thats used for transport cant be used for trade(exchange) or for Navy (exploration/patrol/fighting)

Combat can be resolved "strategically" i simply move my troops into a province and the computer resolves the combat - or tactically - i fight a turn based battle on a seperate screen. So far ive only fought natives, and i dont have a real sense of how combined arms works - i think they did try to model that reasonably well.

For some grand strategic considerations i'll probably post an AAR of my current game - either here or a seperate thread.

All in all - i think less replayability than Civ - no scenarios for example. Definitely more abstract, less micromanagement. Very little unit pushing. Some historical accuracy in results, but this isnt close to a history sim. not far enough in to judge strategic depth, alternatic ways of winning, but looks promising.

lord of the mark · June 30, 2003, 09:33

oh - and one clever way micromanagement is avoided - only food for urban workers and military units is modeled, using the SURPLUS from the countryside. The food produced by the rural poulation to feed the rural population is ignored - its considered a wash - which means any rural area not developed to produce a surplus is also ignored. Thus the rural population is basically invisible. Also means i only have to allocate the urban labor force - no managing the rural labor force.

Since the urban labor force is (rather abstracly) all considered to be in my capital city, it basically means i have only one labor force to allocate - not 40 or 50 seperate labor forces as in late game Civ2. This allows for a much more subtle and realistic allocation model for that one force ( should i build the bronze i need for more troops - or the iron i need for more improvements - - or the paper (lets say) to earn export earnings - or cloth to recruit more workers - if i recruit more workers i can make allocation easier - but i cant feed them if my labor force gets ahead of my food supply - but to develop more food supply i need more iron and wood - production of which MAY be constrained by labor shortages - OR by resource shortages - which can be allocated by development, but THAT requires iron and wood. I can by pass shortages by buying from foreigners - but until ive got riches coming in from the new world that can get expensive, unless ive got a lot of exports - which will take up labor, and shipping capacity (which i can increase, but costs lots of resources) OTOH trading will improve my diplomatic position.

Mongoose · June 30, 2003, 21:27

LOTM - Sorry, I don't remember what the problem with the rats was...it has been quite a while! I seem to recall that the event became perpetual. It's supposed to deplete half your grain storage in a once and done event. Again, my memory isn't 100% on this.

SnowFire · July 1, 2003, 00:37

The economy is realistic and deep

Enjoy that thought while you can. While perhaps the resource manipulation is good, there is only one way to get actual, cold hard cash. That is by killing Indians as fast as possible, and since you don't always quite know where the diamonds or gold are, by sweeping out a fairly large amount of terriotory (preferably in the Incans or Aztecs). Negotiating with the Indians is completely worthless; it requires far much more time, effort, & cash for less reward than just going on a standard conquering spree. You know, Spain didn't have that wonderful an economy in real history, despite Potosoi. It annoys me that this is the only option. Worse, at least on the harder difficulties, you will grow to hate the retreat system which always allows an enemy to retreat, even into your own provinces! It matters not if you hit them with Knights and they have peasants, they can always escape unscathed. Sure, later in the game you can build forts everywhere and put this tactic out of business, but the AI is so bad late in the game it won't matter. The real task is surviving, since at least on the higher difficulties the AI starts out hating you.

And oh yes. The Diplomacy is pure crap. EU has spoiled me, odd as it sometimes behaves. Rarely is it that I have seen so many ALLIANCE MEMBERS randomly turn on me at the drop of a hat... and how it's still impossible to negotiate the end of the war as an alliance. If one side agrees to peace, it must be a separate peace breaking the alliance. That means that once an alliance goes to war, it can theoretically never stop until its enemy is annihilated.

Bah. Imp2 is a game with a lot of potential, and I suppose it was worth the money I paid for it when it came out- but it has SERIOUS flaws that come up whenever I try and replay the game.

Ecthy · July 1, 2003, 07:18

imperialism 2? loved the predecessor, the demo of imp2 bored the hell out of me

lord of the mark · July 1, 2003, 09:09

Quote:

Originally posted by SnowFire
The economy is realistic and deep

Enjoy that thought while you can. While perhaps the resource manipulation is good, there is only one way to get actual, cold hard cash. That is by killing Indians as fast as possible, and since you don't always quite know where the diamonds or gold are, by sweeping out a fairly large amount of terriotory (preferably in the Incans or Aztecs). Negotiating with the Indians is completely worthless; it requires far much more time, effort, & cash for less reward than just going on a standard conquering spree. You know, Spain didn't have that wonderful an economy in real history, despite Potosoi. It annoys me that this is the only option. Worse, at least on the harder difficulties, you will grow to hate the retreat system which always allows an enemy to retreat, even into your own provinces! It matters not if you hit them with Knights and they have peasants, they can always escape unscathed. Sure, later in the game you can build forts everywhere and put this tactic out of business, but the AI is so bad late in the game it won't matter. The real task is surviving, since at least on the higher difficulties the AI starts out hating you.

And oh yes. The Diplomacy is pure crap. EU has spoiled me, odd as it sometimes behaves. Rarely is it that I have seen so many ALLIANCE MEMBERS randomly turn on me at the drop of a hat... and how it's still impossible to negotiate the end of the war as an alliance. If one side agrees to peace, it must be a separate peace breaking the alliance. That means that once an alliance goes to war, it can theoretically never stop until its enemy is annihilated.

Bah. Imp2 is a game with a lot of potential, and I suppose it was worth the money I paid for it when it came out- but it has SERIOUS flaws that come up whenever I try and replay the game.

I was comparing it to Civ - ive never played EU, so I cant compare it. I said elsewhere its not a history sim - i had EU in mind when i said that, though i didnt know EU had a more detailed economic model. I guess the advantage of Imp might be simplicity and elegance, though if the strategic choices are that unbalanced that will be a negative. Im not experienced enough to say from my own gameplay.

Of course the reliance on imported treasures for cash is exagerated. In actual history ever Spain was fairly heavily dependent on internal taxes, which dont exist in Imp2. I certainly recognize it as a highly abstract game.

War4ever · July 2, 2003, 01:01

LOTM sounds like a game worth trying out for fun.... i will look for it in the bargin bin.

although not a history sim, it seems less complicated than EU 1&2...both of which i just loved.....but haven't had the time to really indulge in...so i am not spoiled yet by a game which probably isnt' up to par....

i like strategy games.... going to find this and give it a whirl