EU II and SSI's "Imperialism"

[Castellon]

I loved Imp 1 and 2 but it is a different game. The number of nations and Provinces in EU2 is much larger than Imp. plus Imp was turn based vs EU2 real time.
In short the Imp. econ. model would not work with EU2.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by AlanC9
I loved Imperialism I also. Past tense, though --- after I went to Win98 I was naver able to run the program again. It bombs before the opening movie plays. Anyone else have this problem? (Imp II ran fine for me).

But I don't think it would make sense to put things like the trade system into an EU game. The Imperialism games are about economics (resources, production transportation lines), and the EU system just isn't.

You might try home of the underdogs to see if they have a compatible version.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by AlanC9
I should have thought of that myself, Castellon.

(You sure we're allowed to mention HOTU here?)

Yup!

 

[Castellon]

The worst part of imp AI was that if you landed a force in a major nation the AI moved all it's troops to the capital province, so it was effectively lost.

 

[Castellon]

Tactical battles = BAD!

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Marcus Aemilius

But I would have more options like: choosing tactic before battle,
different units (with nation specific units ) and it means more combat phases.

But this is a strategy game not a tactical one.
Re: Specific units, I always found it a little cheesy in CIV3. Very hard to balance them all.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Generalisimo

agree with this. specific units are very dificult to balance (like Civ3 or Cossacks).
And, all people will want to be a major power with specific units, and no one will play for example Nubia because of the lack of the specific units....
but, you can say, "well, let's make specific units for all so you can play every nation with their specific units".... mmm ...a total mess right??? have you count all the nations in EU? they are more than 200... so making 200 specific units is a total waste of time... and imagine if you want to make specific units for specific periods of time... you can multiply 200 * n, being "n" the number of units you want to have for the countries.... so a COMPLETE MESS and WASTE OF TIME.
you can spend that time making the AI better.

Exactly my point, thanks for expanding on it.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


I can give it a try, though be prepared to rewrite it in the thread, I'm not to be trusted.

Edit : Pfeeew, it worked.

You are the master, we but your puppets !

 

[Castellon]

Re: what if

Originally posted by Teaparty
I agree, no micro-battles.

As for trade:
How about having bonuses to your stability if you can trade certain items. Rather than profit, I'd like to see it go along the luxury route and create happiness. It could force you to make trade agreements with a country. You get credit for a resourse you either produce or have a Trade agreement with a country that trades it to you.(It would give me more an incentive to create or honor trade agreements. The flip-side is it could offset the religious complications in stability, where you could decide to trade to become more stable. The drawback is smaller countries get penalized, but stability is not usually a big concern as with a country with more provences.

just a thought
Teaparty

I always thought you should get some kind of bonus out of each Trade item.
For example Lots give a bonus to manufactories if they are built in those provinces, producing and trading grain increase your troop capacity. ...
But what for example is Fur good for!
Maybe it should give you a bonus against winter attrition!

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Bismarck
Well, I'd like to see a multiple product province system... with certain provinces being richer and easier to exploit...

What I am thinking is let's say you start out as a wine producing province... well, as the ruler of your country, you could put more money into developing another possible resource in that country... like metals or cotton or ceramics... but depending on the province, some resources would be harder(ie more costly) to develop than others... and there are places that you can't get certain resources, no matter how much you pay(like furs in the desert)

M

Well if you did that then you would have to use my suggestion of making every trade item have a special purpose. Otherwise everyone would change every province into a grain , Sugar/Wine, or metal province. or Gold.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Generalisimo
i like the idea of Castellon, every resource should give some bonus, the more you have, the more you get.

Well it would certainly put a strategic value on some provinces that now have none!

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Robespierre
Another interesting idea from imperialism, when you blockade an enemy port, you usually capture merchant ships, and sieze their cargos. This would be an interesting addition, perhaps during open war, if you blockade, you can sieze ships and cargo, but only while at war.

I really like this idea, Stealing the enemies trade income.

Maybe his merchants in overseas CoTs would be auto competed out by your merchants while the blockade lasts.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Teaparty
Another way to look at trade would be research. Navy supplies could help navy research, the ores for military, grain, spices for stability, cloth and slaves for infastrudture...etc (many more examples). Give me a reason to not just attack the closest and easiest foe in my way.
Teaparty

I had not thought of research as a way to achieve the goal of making all the trade items valuable. I like it.

 

[Castellon]

Did you try Imp2, it was a little different, maybe you would have liked it better. It is on the home of the underdogs site if you want to give it a try.

 

[Castellon]

First, I don't know about your game, but there is no "silver" in mine!
Second gold is not traded.
Grain already increases your manpower limits, so I don't think it should have additional bonuses. I would not have any over +1, with maybe a +5 for exclusive trade of an item. Otherwise it may unbalance the game too much.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by Pwyll
One of the great problems in the trade area is the fact every area has a definitive good. Cotton was not used extsensively in the southern US until imported and transplanterd from India. All The great old Warships of England made from famous English oak...but you would never know it because by 1419 when the game starts all the English oak has been cut down already...gold mines that never lose value...etc...when you think about it most of Ireland should be grain based to reflect the potato harvest which Ireland was so heavily dependent upon which when failed mass starvation yet the potato was only introduced from the Americas in the mid 1700's. Aamerica can be colonized for 300 years and yet still only produce furs and tobacco...no real manufacturing of their own at all. Imp 1 & 2 has always had a place in my heart. There have been many threads in the forums comparing these games and EU....all have their bonuses and minuses...such as exploring and random mineral location...no matter how many time you play EU...you can land in Santee and produce cotton...though you have no idea where India is and there will always been lots of iron ore in wisconsin for you to use.

A flag with an option for a random game would be very nice. A random map is out of the question, but random trade goods could be fun.

 

[Castellon]

Originally posted by BiB
Gold in the game represents both gold and silver.

Gold is Gold, There is no substitute.

In any case the second point still holds.