|
Dminoz's
Imp3 page
Virtually
everyone who plays Imp2 for any length of time soon
starts to put together an Imp3 wish list. Not wanting
to be different in that regard, here's my contribution...
If I've ever encountered a better game than Imperialism
II, I haven't been able to recall it for quite some
time now.. If I had to take one game to a desert island,
the Imp would be it, no question.
There is so much to
like about this game. The depth of the gameplay, the depth
of the economic model, the way trade works, and the fact
that it's a thinking game -- you spend as much, if not more,
time just thinking about stuff as actually doing things.
There must be a whole sub-class of finger-twitchering FPS-players
out there who absolutely detest games like this.
One of the things that
playing Imp2 does (for me, at least) is to open the
"What if..." Pandora's Box; the
ever-growing list of impossibilities and unlikelihoods that
would, if I owned a sweatshop full of slave programmers,
become Imp3, yesterday sometime...
GENERAL IDEAS
1) Pbem (Play by email), with a utility that can
process the submitted game files and create new ones. Email
(i.e. negotiate with) other players from inside the game.
2) Deeper diplomacy -- just about everything should
be negotiable.
3) Modding ability -- the graphics should be directories
of gifs that can easily be tweaked or replaced. The configuration
should be derived as much as possible from text files that
can be edited. Events should be determined by scripts in
text files that can be edited. In other words, the whole
game should be wide open to mods and scenarios.
4) Map editor -- for user maps in scenarios..
PARTICULAR IDEAS
THE MAP
Firstly, a lot of what I say below hangs off this
idea; Imp3 should be able to use a map of the entire
real world, and you should be able to play any country you
want. This would change the focus of the game a lot.
It would allow the game to be pointed in the direction of
'history sim', which, imho, would be a very interesting
place for it to go. It's tempting to suggest that the ideas
of Great Power, minor nation and New World could go, but
on reflection, those divisions are such a fundamental part
of the game's structure that's hard to imagine it without
them.
A world map would also
make the idea of randomly generated worlds less important
than it is in Imp2. Under the heading "Community"
below , I explain why this would be a good thing (Imp2
has been too smart for its own good.).
(Also, the idea of
controlling x number of provinces to win the game
should be retired. It's a board game kind of victory condition,
anyway, and is arbitrary and artificial.) At the very least,
you should be able to set victory conditions, and controlling
a number of provinces should be just one of the available
options.
There could be different maps:
There could be a 'real' map, in which the distribution of
resources follows as closely as possible the actual known
distribution in 1500, or whatever the starting year would
be. If there was gold in Silesia in 1500, then let there
be gold on the map. If York was a big cattle farming area,
then so be it. This map could be constantly being fine-tuned
as a result of player input (there were gem mines in Egypt,
and the textile industries in Flanders need to be stronger,
that sort of thing), and the game could have the option
of updating the map from the FC servers. This map could
be an ongoing project -- mapping the world in 1500, or in
other years, depending on the scenario. History fans love
that sort of thing. People who were working on mods could
fine-tune and customise maps as well.
THE ECONOMY
Other people have got things to say about this, but I really
can't see much that needs changing here. The way production
works is already intricately and seamlessly tied in with
the map and with gameplay overall. Sure, you could add more
raw materials or more manufactured goods, but then you run
the risk of over-complicating things. Obviously things would
change to keep in line with all the other developments in
Imp3, but I can't see any screamers here. One decision
needed, though -- whether to base it on the Imp I or II
model, as they are quite different, with Imp I having manufactured
goods such as furniture, weaponry, etc.
INFRASTRUCTURE
It would be a good idea to have cities be able to reach
the point where their influence (which at the moment is
the "transport=4" thing that you have at the start)
expands outwards by another square. This could happen when
a certain number or type of researches are complete, and
would be the equivalent of a small city becoming a large
one. It's area of influence would therefore also be bigger.
On any empty tile (i.e.
one not containing a resource) within that area, you would
be able to further develop your megalopolis by building
items from a new category; infrastructure. You could
build a University, a Shipyard (on a coast), a Cathedral,
a Military Academy, A Heavy Industrial Region, and a Special
Economic Zone (trade). The presence of these would have
further impact on various elements such as trade efficiency,
research, the price that could be obtained for manufactured
goods such as Cast Iron or Steel (because they would be
of higher quality), quality of military units. etc,
In this way, you would
be able to further develop your provinces in ways specific
to each, and in keeping with their resource base. It would
be another, more province-specific, way of researching;
in fact this system could pretty much replace the present
research system.
The following infrastructure
units could be available:
1) The Industrial Region allows all mines
in the province to be upgraded to the next level (there
are still 4 levels of development), at the small cost of
a Level 1 upgrade. Mines can now also be upgraded in all
the other provinces, i.e. that don't have an Industrial
Region, but the cost in those cases is higher, without any
discount. This is because the technology would have to be
transferred to the other provinces.
The Industrial Region
also creates bonus materials, just as a developed town does
presently. It results in increased sale price for any goods
that are produced in the province (because of increased
quality). If an industrial region is destroyed, the advantages
it confers disappear.
2) The University allows for cheaper research
in any other institution found in the province.. It provides
a free research bonus every x turns. It provides for a free
civ unit every x turns. It also slows down the rate of increase
in the cash cost of civ units. (Rather than stay the same
price, they get more expensive as time moves on; universities
take the edge off this.) A Univeristy allows recruiting
of an Amabassador.
3) The Military Academy increases research
on military units. It provides a free military unit upgrade
each x turns. It adds a level to the fortification of the
province. It speeds up the healing of any injured troops
in the province (because of the military hospital, of course).
A Military Academy allows recruiting of Generals.
4) The Special Economic Zone affects trade.
It makes any trade-related researches less expensive. It
makes trade deals that involved any resources produced in
the province more likely. It raises the sale price of all
resources in the province.
5) The Shipyard makes naval research less
expensive. You get a free ship upgrade every x turns. It
speeds repair of damaged ships in that port (they can only
be built in ports, of course). A Shipyard allows recruiting
of Commodores.
6) The Trades School allows for the upgrading
of a farm or mine in that province every x turns. Like Industrial
Regions, the upgrades happen at Level 1 cost, as long as
the Trades Academy is present. In other provinces, the upgrades,
while they are available, cost much more.
Trade Schools at the
different levels of development allow training of apprentices,
journeymen and artisans respectively.
7) The Mission. Native provinces can rebel
against you if you handle them wrongly. Building a Mission
gradually lessens the risk of rebellion. A Mission also
depletes the morale of native armies of the same tribe in
directly neighbouring provinces. Missions can occasionally
develop a resource in the province to Level 1. They can
eventually lead to the cultural conversion of the province.
Some general notes on these institutions:
a) Each one requires a yearly cash budget to function.
They can be mothballed if they can't be afforded for a while.
(This saves the expense of rebuilding. It's the equivalent
of just sending the staff home for a while.)
b) The loss of an institution (e.g. through losing the
province in war) deals a blow to the relevant part of society;
e.g. a downgrading of mines or farms in the province, a
reduction in diplomatic skills, or loss or downgrading of
some military units, depending on what institutions are
involved.
c) Institutions can be captured in war, and only need
a relatively small injection of capital in order to become
operational again.
d) Institutions have four levels of development. These
equate to the four current levels of development for individual
resources, such as farms and mines. The first instance of
an insitution reaching each level of development might be
more expensnive than each subsequent time you build one
of that level -- it is the cost of making the breakthrough.
e) When a Spy is operating in a province, he only gets
access to information (i.e. the researching bonus) of institutions
that have been built in that province.
f) The end result of all these institutions, and the point
of them, is that tech advances become dependent on provinces.
This will make the various strengths and weaknesses of provinces
even more important than in Imp2. The resource base
of a province will play a large part in determining the
best way to develop it.
Losing a well-developed
province in a war could be a real blow, just as gaining
one could be a windfall.
g) How developed a province can become depends on how
many vacant tiles there are within the city's area. A small
city won't support many institutions -- a more developed
city will support more, and a Level 3 city can be a virtual
megalopolis. This level should be very expensive, and relquire
a lot of resources to achieve.
DIPLOMACY
Among all the components that add to the strength of Imp2's
gameplay, diplomacy is the Achille's Heel.
The trouble is that
you can't do enough with diplomacy. For example, you can't
dissolve an alliance, and the alliances you form with other
Great Powers are one-dimensional affairs, and apart from
going or not going to war, have little real consequence.
There's also no concept of senior and junior partners in
an alliance.
It would be nice to
be able to deliver ultimatums, such as a) allow access to
my merchants, or I'll boycott you and your colonies, or
b) hand over province X, or it's war...
Perhaps you could be
able to upgrade your embassies, too, so that they function
more effectively, even without an ambassador...
AMBASSADORS
Ambassadors could be a civilian unit, hired like builders
and engineers. While diplomatic realtions and activities
could proceed at a standard level without having to send
an ambassador to a foreign power, relations with them are
taken to the next level once you send an ambassador. The
persence of an ambassador could be required for some advanced
activities, such as delivering ultimatums, negotiating a
good peace treaty, or annexing. Ambassadors could gain experience
with each international incident they're involved in, just
as military units gain medals. The more experienced an ambassador,
the higher his chances of success in diplomacy -- e.g. annexing
a minor nation or negotiating a peace. (Negotiating a
peace? -- see the following point)
WAR & PEACE
... is not just a slugfest, it's the extension
of politics, yes, we know, so it should be treated as such.
In Imp2, wars simply start and stop with few complications
or effects, and no explanation as to why. The handling of
wars as events in EU2 is interesting; provinces taken
during a war are controlled by the occupier, but are still
nominally owned by their rightful owner, at least until
the peace is negotiated. Importantly, wars only end when
there is a negotiated peace. When peace is struck by the
warring parties, a siezed province might or might not change
hands as part of the peace deal. If it doesn't change hands
as part of the negotiated settlement, it reverts to its
original owner. The peace negotiations might result in other
events, such as a cash payment (i.e. reparations), merchant
access, trade subsidies. And the resulting peace treaties
should have a life span, just as in EU2, so that
any country that breaks a treaty and redeclares war should
suffer somehow (in EU2, you lose "stability
points", a concept which Imp2 doesn't have and
doesn't need.).
ANOTHER UNIT: THE GENERAL
First, we demote the current generals that are allocated
automatically as your army increases in size to the status
of mere officers. There might be some grumbling in the ranks,
but such is life, and when you join the army, you know what
you're getting into. The 'Officers' keep functioning as
in Imp2; i.e. they increase moral during battle.
The General is now a
unit that we hire, just like the current civilian units.
When you place a General in a province, he brings with him
his whole entourage, and a fair whack of army infrastructure.
In other words, a province with a General in it has extra
troops as long as he's there, plus the fort could be tougher.
All troops in the province fight as though they have an
extra medal, what with them being spurred on by the General
and all. When the General is on the scene, it takes more
to make troops retreat. As long as the General is in a province,
there are periodic free upgrades among troops that are in
the province.
Also, rebellions are
less likely in provinces that have a General.
As well as the General,
we'll also need Commodores, who add the same sort of advantage
to fleets.
BATTLES
The current tactical battle system is ok, it works. And
the option to either let battles be resolved automatically
or to take control is a good one.
Still, I'd like to see
the battle screen treated way differently-- my perfect solution
(for now, anyway, and probably totally impractical) would
be to use the Cossacks engine or something like it to fight
battles. For every unit of infantry you have committed to
the battle, you'd start the setup with maybe 10 soldiers.
Or twenty, or whatever number would lead to balanced gameplay.
The same could apply to cavalry and artillery. Maybe one
artillery unit gets you five pieces on the battlefield.
(Just like the current
system, if a unit is damaged from previous battles and is
at reduced strength or morale, this would be reflected in
the number and morale of the units deployed at the start
of the battle scenario.)
Perhaps if a battle
is being fought in a territory where you have cultural or
other affinity with population, you get 'citizen militias'
appearing by your side, to give you a hand (like Imp
I). Of course, if the enemy is invading your territory
to regain a province that is culturally their own, you might
find that the militias join the other side, not yours...
(Culture...? See the following point...)
Oh, and it goes without
saying that naval battles can be fought out, too.
SOCIETY & CULTURE
Now here's a tricky one. This area is totally neglected
by Imp2. As the ruler of your Empire, you seem to
have no control over society and culture, while having complete
authority over trade and production. Some idea of your
Empire's cultural domain could add a lot to the gamespace.
Adding the concept
of 'culture' could add lots of possibilities. It makes sense
that your home provinces are easier to develop than New
World provinces, for example. Also, you might experience
rebellions among populations that are not from your own
culture. (This is an EU2 idea; if you let rebels control
a province for too long, there is the danger that they might
defect to another country, probably back to their homeland.)
HISTORICAL TIMELINE / LEADERS
Taking a rather sizable leaf from EU2's book here.
This is a really obvious way to add a lot of flavor to the
Imp experience. Here's where scripting enters the
picture, and the history sim idea can really get a workout.
Leaders could come and go based on history. They should
have attributes based on what we know from history. If some
king was known to have screwed up his country's food industry
to finance a war, then something in the scripting could
reflect that. If a particular king of England brought about
a thaw in relations with France, then relations between
France and England should get a boost during his reign.
If he was a military genius, then your troops' performance
should reflect the fact.
PUTTING A FACE ON IT
The headings of Diplomacy and Historical
Timeline are really addressing one issue -- the desirability
of putting a human face on some of the action in Imp3.
Imp2 is heavy on the calculations, but it's possible
to forget that we're meant to be dealing with the leaders
and governments of other countries. Imp3 needs to
introduce the idea that there's someone at the other end
of the AI.
COMMUNITY
Finally, it's possible to see in Imp2 itself some
of the reasons for the game's lack of an ongoing online
community.
Prime example: mods.
In the gaming world, people love mods. They love hacking
into things and changing them around, making scenarios,
editing ini files, making their own campaigns or worlds
or levels. Look at the active mod communities that flourish
for games like Civ3, EU2, or HalfLife.
But you can't mod Imp2.
There are no scripts to hack, and no events to debate the
virtues of and then edit a texti file to change. The best
you can do now is say to someone "Try behyuu
as a map key. You'll get lots of horses and iron ore. (or
punish yourself and try Nepal)"
If Imp3 could
be script-based and as user-editable as possible, players
could make their own scenarios (The Great Northern War,
whatever...). People could swap and argue scenarios and
tweak each other's mods... It is for this reason that I
say that the randomly generated world, clever though it
is, should be retired or made a minor option. It's clever
and works well, but it does in seconds what people should
be toiling long and hard over, muttering and cursing as
they go. Once people start doing that with a game, it takes
a lot to make them stop playing.
dminoz
Last edited March 29, 2005
|
