I have always wanted a system in Civ V/VI where food production dictated how many units a single hex could support. Tundra, forest and desert tiles would allow for smaller stacks, but bigger defensive bonus while plains and grasslands allow for bigger stacks but no defensive ability. And as technology and farming methods improved, a single hex could support a bigger army based on the food increase. Pillaging food tiles would also permit that defensiveness.
Then again, I really wanted a Civ:CTP army system when I heard about Civ VI and was totally disappointed there!
That would be awesome!
So say we all.
Tom Chick’s essay about Imperialism II is really spot-on. Fun to read it again.
Yup, the main reason I prefer Imperialism to Civ is that it avoids the mid to end game slog by having production take place entirely in the capital all game; more territory just means more resources coming in, not more production queues. BUT it also keeps the fun worker improvement aspect for individual tiles WHILE abstracting army movement to large Risk-like territories instead of individual space crawling. Why haven’t more 4x games copied this system?
I would correct Tom’s article in 2 areas: railroads are never worth building in Imp 2 (the game will end long before they or level 3-4 improvements ever pay off), and it’s totally possible to win by ignoring the new world. In fact, my best games are when I entirely ignore the new world and concentrate on old world infrastructure (spend zero $ on research, let spies do it all and don’t bother with upgraded workers). Grab a new world diamond territory when you eventually declare war on a great power and that’s it. You don’t need money from new world stuff since you’re not spending anything on research, and you don’t need luxury goods because you have plenty of labor from unskilled workers by expanding your food network in the old world.
There are a couple things I prefer about Imp 1. The visuals, the humor, the greater importance on markets, the fixed technology discover rate.
The theme of the expansion is climate change, and it features hurricanes, storms, and other extreme weather events. So “Gathering Storm” seems appropriate to me.
I just love Imp2. I have just 100s of map keys, the very cream of the crop of map keys out of 1000s I’ve found through the years, carefully curated. I probably only use the top 10-20. But every 6 months I’ll play through 3-4 of the best maps and I have them on rotation so I’m only repeating about a map about once every 2 years.
I’ll bite. What makes a map key the cream of the crop?
I put them in the Imp2 thread I’m pretty sure.
I have my own excel formula which weighs wealth in the new world vs resources available in the old world. Wealthy New World plus Resource-heavy old world = winning map.
Huh, interesting. I mean that’s a sensible basis if you are looking for certain outcomes. Personally I might favor a different weighting, but I like that you’ve got certain map attributes that you value most.
It’s like how in Age of Empires 2 I tended to really love maps that were either very forest heavy, or islands/ archipelago. Because my favorite ways to play were either walls and towers fueled late game boom (I always loved getting the big toys at the end game), or to go a vikingr with longships or my favorite the Turtle Ship.
If you want to PM me your e-mail address I can e-mail you the excel document that has the raw data too so you could do your own formulae
Thanks for the offer, but no need. I’ve not played enough Inperialsim to have refined my preference like that (in fact I’ve only got a rather shamefully limited experience with it, missed it in the day).
Besides I play, like, 10 hours of games in a month. I suspect getting Imperialism time is a long way out.
Not to tell you what to do, but this is literally the perfect use case for Google Docs :)
Also: Strong/Early New World armies or bust! I love a development/diplomatic game. Ends up being very naval-focused, but that’s fine.
Sure. Just “Gathering Storm” is one of those cliché titles that you usually only see in parodies or satire. Monty Python’s Flying Circus was already making fun of this in the late 60s/early 70s. It’s almost as bad as a “Rise of”-kind of title. It just seems creatively bankrupt to me.
Ah, now I see what you mean. Yep, one could evoke climate change without relying on a cliche. Actually, a better title would embrace both the climate-change theme and the new World Congress and diplomatic victory. “Diplomacy and Disasters,” or something like that.
Nothing like some random, uncontrollable events to make a strategy game more strategic.
Random events can be great fun. In good games, anyway.