AGEOD Forums

I have had Imperialism 2 for a while now and I like it well. It happens now and then that I start up a new game and play (rarely to the end but that I have never done with any game. Im a builder, not a long-time manager) but a few days ago I downloaded Imperialism 1 and was struck by how well the in-game graphics were.

Every thing looked like it was drawn by hand just like BoA and it really inspired me atleast. The back side was the lousy AI taht would attack me after a few years even on the easiest level and Im was never able to build up that qickly.

It is a pitty that the company that made them has disappered (SSI) becuase I think that game could be improved on further and become really great.

Has anyone else tried it?

Kotik wrote:Every thing looked like it was drawn by hand just like BoA and it really inspired me atleast. The back side was the lousy AI taht would attack me after a few years even on the easiest level and Im was never able to build up that qickly.

I must admit that Imperialism I and II was in my mind during the conception of BoA as two good examples of how to make a good game. And not only in term of graphisms. And to be complete, it was a common opinion for all the team who works on BoA.

Yeah, I have both of them and played for a while but never really finished a campaign. The diplomacy sucks as there are only a small amount of playable factions. So the field is somewhat limited.

I dropped the II 'cause I couldn't get the patch to install at all.

Ardie wrote:Yeah, I have both of them and played for a while but never really finished a campaign. The diplomacy sucks as there are only a small amount of playable factions. So the field is somewhat limited.

Yes the diplomacy is abit lacking but okay I think.

WEll on the playble factions, yes I would have been nice if you could make your own nation and that you could choose a bigger map. Some more variations that is...

Don't forget one great idea wich give the game a great longevity : the exeptionnal random map generator !

yes but still, the maps are of the same size and the same nations, if that could have been choosable or randomised then it would have even more potential.

The main problem with the Imperialism games and their diplomacy was that only the "Great Powers" were active. The others were just pawns to be exploited.

When a war erupted between 2 Big Boys, the rest of the active countries usually allied quickly with one of the warring nations and gangbanged the poor lonesome nation into a submission. Repeat this ad infinitum until there was only one active country left.

That's why the diplomatic model in a XIXth century game need some fine tuning: in my mind, only the big powers should be active, and smaller nations should be influenced, but only to a certain point (i.e. not to the point of being spêechless worshipful faithful allies )...

If you limit also the cause for war (Casus Belli), the influence of money (no bribing of nation into a war) and the number of diplomatic actions allowed to great powers, you come close to something more realistic

PhilThib wrote:That's why the diplomatic model in a XIXth century game need some fine tuning: in my mind, only the big powers should be active, and smaller nations should be influenced, but only to a certain point (i.e. not to the point of being spêechless worshipful faithful allies )...

If you limit also the cause for war (Casus Belli), the influence of money (no bribing of nation into a war) and the number of diplomatic actions allowed to great powers, you come close to something more realistic

The last part is SO from PI's EU games...but you are quite right PhilThib, some limits has to be set and also there was real limits to what you could do to minor nations even for a great power during that age.

PhilThib wrote:That's why the diplomatic model in a XIXth century game need some fine tuning: in my mind, only the big powers should be active, and smaller nations should be influenced, but only to a certain point (i.e. not to the point of being spêechless worshipful faithful allies )...

If you limit also the cause for war (Casus Belli), the influence of money (no bribing of nation into a war) and the number of diplomatic actions allowed to great powers, you come close to something more realistic

Amen apy:

Robin wrote:Don't forget one great idea wich give the game a great longevity : the exeptionnal random map generator !

Yep, that allowed some replayability. But, it could have been better...

Generalisimo wrote:Yep, that allowed some replayability. But, it could have been better...

What do you mean ?

Robin wrote:What do you mean ?

That the only replayability came from the random map generator... but after you played it sometimes... there weren't much changes around... it was more or less the same.