GENERAL RULES
The board is a map of Europe just prior to World War One. In fact, the map is very similar to the one used in Diplomacy (maybe that's why this game attracts so many metagame clowns, more on this later). There are the 6 major powers-- England, France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia--and each of these powers is divided into 5 regions two of which are predetermined to start with factories. There are also neutral countries, ready and willing to be occupied and taxed by the major powers (the only exception being Switzerland, which is unoccupiable.) Each power also has bonds for sale, with face values: 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, and 25. Each of the bonds has an interest value. The 4 bond for example pays an interest of 2.
At the start of the game, players start with a certain amount of cash the amount of which depends on the number of players. Starting with Austria-Hungary, players in turn get one opportunity to buy in each country. After each player has had a turn to buy a bond at each of the six powers, play begins and the owner of each country will choose an action on the rondel wheel for the country they are controlling.
Ownership of the country is determined by the sum of all the face values of the bonds one owns in that country. If there is a tie, the original owner remains in control. The countries take turns in the following order: Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, England, Germany, Russia. A country's first action can be anywhere on the Rondel wheel. Thereafter, it can only advance up to 3 spaces for free, and must pay $2 from the owning player's account (which is different from the country's own account) for each extra space that it advances. The actions available on the Rondel are: factory, import, production, maneuver, investor, and taxation.
factory: the country pays $5 from its own treasruy to build a factory in one of its 5 regions. Each region specifies what type of factory (blue or brown) is to be built in it.
import: the country pays $1 from its own treasury for each military unit (army or fleet) that it brings in onto the board. Can import up to 3 units.
production: the country can produce 1 military unit at each of its (unoccupied) factories for free. Note that a blue factory produce fleets and only fleets, and a brown factory armies and only armies.
maneuver: each military unit may move 1 space. Inside its own country, it can use the "railway" and move an unlimited number of spaces. Combat is resolved in a 1 for 1 basis. Army can use fleets to move across the seas (in which case it can move multiple spaces, any number across its fleet/s and another into its landing space). It takes a fleet one movement to move from its factory into the adjacent sea space. Armies can occupy other countries' factories. Fleets and armies occupying seas and neutral regions also puts down a taxation chip on each of those spaces.
investor: the country pays interest from its treasury to all the bond owners. If the country does not have sufficient funds, the owning player must pay for the country from his own account. The player holding the investor card (and this happens also if the investor wedge is passed instead of landed on on the Rondel), gets $2 and can purchase or upgrade one bond. To upgrade a bond, exchange a lower bond for a higher one and pay the difference in the face value. A player who does not own any country also gets to purchase/upgrade one bond. When purchasing/upgrading a bond, the player pays cash to the country. The investor card is then handed to the next player.
taxation: the number of factories times two plus the number of taxation chips is the country's current "power". When it taxes, the country gets cash from the bank equal to its power subtracted by the size of its military. It also moves up the cumulative power level track by its power level minus five. Lastly, the player receives a taxation bonus from the bank for the difference in power when the country last taxed. For example if Italy last taxed with a power of 8 and moved up the power level track 3 spaces, and now taxes with a power of 10 and moves up the power level track 5 spaces, the player controlling Italy gets $2 in taxation bonus from the bank.
scoring
The game ends when one country reachs a cumulative power level of 25. A country's final multiplier is its cumulative power level divided by 5, rounded down. Each bond is worth its interest value times that country's final multiplier. A player's score is the worth of all his bonds plus his cash in hand.
THE UGLY
which can also be beautiful, depending on one's inclination
Imperial is one of the most beautiful and ugliest games I have ever played. Like war, it can bring out the best and worst in us. I'll talk about the ugly first, then the general Imperial strategy, before I finally talk about the beautiful because appreciation of the latter requires an understanding of the former two.
Learning Imperial is one of the most frustrating and stressful gaming experience I've ever had. The strategy is anything but straightforward, and beginners will be at a loss of what to do faced by a sea of seemingly random and obscure decisions. It is definitely a struggle to understand how different actions affect different players. I've seen people play one game (or a couple of games) of Imperial and talk about it as if they got some sort of strategy down. I don't buy that; because I believe, barring the very few exceptions, a novice has no understanding of strategy to speak of in his first games. In fact, a very strong Schotten Totten player I know from flexgames.com admits as much, "I am too confused to be stressed in Imperial." Now, I take that as a sign of his intelligence. True knowledge comes from knowing that one knows nothing. It takes intelligence to realize the futility of one's actions in the early games, because Imperial has a way of tricking one into believing his nearly random actions are actually somewhat meaningful. While the game itself, once "understood", is nowhere nearly as deep as Go, it is very elusive and opaque at first. Imperial is definitely a game that rewards extensive plays and study.
One reason the strategy is so opaque, is that it is really "step-wise". In fact, much of the strategical depth of the game stems from these step-wise manipulations. It's difficult to explain what I mean by "step-wise", but I will try. In Imperial, a difference of one cash, or one extra stop on the Rondel, can make or break a game. A big part of the game is about performing these step-wise maneuvers: have france investor right before england does, have russia investor right before italy taxes, managing to have $9 instead of $8 when it is your turn to purchase a bond, etc. I suppose one way to put it, is that the game has some extremely nuanced and complicated tactical, as opposed to strategical, calculations to make.
King-making is an age-old issue that is present in every multiplayer (3+) game, but the step-wise nature of Imperial enhances it. One's entire plan may depend upon Italy investoring instead of maneuvering next turn, but the controlling player may, whether out of incompetence or spite, choose to maneuver, or worse yet, import. And sometimes, one simply is left no other choice but to king-make one way or another. Consider a situation where one must purchase a bond, and the best ones available are Russia's and England's. Buying one or another may leave one of the other two players the sole uncontested owner of either country. This is worse if the England player also owns France and the Russia player Austria. Because if you leave someone alone owning a combination of strong England-puppet France, or strong Russia-puppet Austria, you are throwing away the game to him, or at the very least making it very easy.
Related to king-making is the possibility to let others do all the "work" and ride on their efforts to victory. I played a four player game where the winner was the second highest investor in Russia and England. But his strategy relied on other players playing well. If the Russian or English owner had been incompetent at running their countries, the winner would have done horribly. One may say that this is "broken", but it's actually a good reflection on real life. Being a shrewd investor requires an accurate reading of the political-economical climate. In other words, and especially in a 4 player game, reading and playing the players, anticipating their actions and how events will unfold, is important and very much a part of the game. It's all about being opportunistic.
Lastly, Imperial really reveals one's true (invariably ugly) character. More so than any other game, I've met some real clowns playing this game: from a player who felt a need to give me a lecture on life after his brilliant victory, to some of the most obnoxious metagame bullies. What's a metagame bully? It's someone who, playing after you in Puerto Rico, will choose to craft so that the leading player going after him can trade, with the purpose of bullying you into crafting yourself so that he can trade instead of the leader. In short someone who expects you to roll over and die, to cave in to their verbal abuse, to crumble mentally to their iron will (they always think very highly of their iron will). Invariably, these metagame bullies also have the shittiest record and the most piss-poor understanding of strategy. These metagame bullies are the last people you want leading your country (talking about the real world here, not Imperial), because they are sure to escalate meaningless conflicts, embargo countries out of spite at the expense of his country's economy, make an incredible threat and actually proceed to follow through it, etc. It's only fitting that they are also the cancer of the countries that they lead in Imperial. It can take a superhuman effort to remain civil in this game, as huge a clown magnet as it is.
But given the game's theme of investors steering nations into courses of actions for their own personal, as opposed to the nation's own, interests, perhaps it's only fitting that the game has so many ugly traits. While the actual methods may differ, the game sends a striking message on war profiteering and the inseparable nature of money and politics.
BASIC STRATEGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
There are four factors to consider when buying bonds. The first and most obvious factor, and the one that drives the game, is the final payout at game's end. Basically, one wins by owning the most of the best bonds. If England ends the game with a multiplier of 4, an English 12 bond is worth its interest times 4 or 5 * 4 = 20 points, and it only costed $12 to buy. If we considered this factor alone, we'd want to buy bonds with the highest expected payout (final value - purchase cost). Life would be extremeley simple: just buy the best bonds at every opportunity. But predicting what the best bonds will be, and stringing together the cash to buy them, is more than trivial. By the way, don't upgrade unless you absolutely need to gain control of a country, because you will be paying more in face value for less interest return.
The second factor to consider is cashback. Lets consider a simplistic scenario. I bought a $6 bond in Italy. When it investors once, I get $3 in interest back. When it investors again, I get back another $3. I then use the $6 I got back to buy the $6 bond in France. After two investor phases, I again get the same $6 back. So essentially, I can use that same $6 to keep buying bonds "for free" indefinitely. I just have to cycle my cash through, and for each cycle I get to keep a bond "for free". It follows that whoever is able to cycle his cash the fastest, will get to purchase the most bonds. Now suppose player A bought the $6 bond in England. If I buy the $4 bond before England does its first investor, we will both get our full cash back after two investor phases. However, if I buy the $4 bond after England has investored once, then England can only investor once again. Player A got his full $6 back, but I only got half of my $4 back, with the remaining $2 stranded in the English treasury (until someone buys another English bond and investors again). Consider another example: I have the $12 in Italy, and its treasury is empty. Now if another player purchased the $16 bond, after one investor I'd get $5 back, he'd get $6 back, and there'd be $5 stranded in the Italian treasury. From these examples, we can see that everything else being equal, it's better to buy bonds in countries we hold the majority of. Because one'd rather have countries they own majority interest in to be able to pay out cash than those they don't, and countries can pay out interest only if they have money, and they can get money only if players invest in them. Another way of thinking about it is, when you purchase a bond, you are sharing the money spent with other shareholders in that country. Obviously, you want to share as much of those money spent as possible with yourself.
Now consider a timing issue: player A bought the $9 bond in Italy, and player B the $6 in France plus $3 in hand, and player A is holding the investor card. Italy investors and player A gets $4 back. He then immediately buys the $4 in France. France then investors, and players A and B gets back, respectively, $2 and $3. Now player A has bonds 9, 4 and cash of 2. Player B has bond 6 and cash 6. Now player B buys the $6 bond in Italy, and Italy investors. Player A gets back 4, and B 3. So now Player A has bonds 9, 4 and cash 6. Player B bond 6, 6 and cash 3. Player A now has a higher total of bonds' face values plus cash.
A third factor to consider is also related to cash, and that is owning a country to tax it and earn the taxation bonus. A common trick is to purchase a bond and take over a country ready to tax for a big bonus (and a $3 bonus can be huge in the early game) from another player, and tax it before anyone can take/retake it from you. This requires careful manipulation of the rondel wheel.
Lastly, another reason to buy bonds is to gain ownership of a country and use its military arsenal for your interest. If I am heavily invested in Russia, I can use Austria-Hungary to let Russia take over all the neighbouring neutral regions and speed up on the power track level. Or if an opponent is heavily invested in England, I may want to use Germany to shut it down, or if I own France temporarily I can build a fleet factory at Brest and make England and France natural enemies for the rest of the game. If I remain in control of France, it is better equipped to attack England. If I lose control of it, it is worse equipped to attack, say Italy a country I may be more heavily invested in than England. Plus, bond purchasing turns can be very valuable and one turn spent on purchasing a French bond is one turn less for purchasing a higher power level country's bond (which ironically may be England itself, which gives me a chance to even up my holding in England with him). Another benefit from owning countries, is the ability to manipulate the Rondel wheel and influence who gets to purchase bonds when.
THE BEAUTIFUL
What's so beautiful about this game is how these four factors interact with each other. Two of them concerns with improving the worth of the bonds that one does or will own. The other two concerns with having enough cash to buy bonds in the first place. Two of them are related to ownership of countries as determined by the bonds' face values. The other two are related to the bonds' interest values (which is interesting because higher face value bonds have lower interest rates). All these come together to make for a dynamic, gripping, and deeply strategical game.
Indeed one of the greater challenges in gaming is balancing between military power and cashflow in Imperial. Should I produce with Italy, a country I am heavily invested in, so that it can tax more regions and move up the power level track? or skip produce and investor instead so I will have more cash for my upcoming bond purchase? Should I take over lowly power level Austria-Hungary at a cost, to let my Russia expand unchecked in the Balkans? Should I upgrade a bond and gain ownership of a country, or buy a cheaper one with a better rate of interest instead? If I am certain I can buy out potentially high power level Russia, then I may want to keep Austria weak and not build any army factories. However if I am worried someone else can buy out Russia, I may want to build up Austria's land force to discourage others from doing so (and then I'll buy out Russia myself, and trash Austria then). Etc, etc.
Another thing that makes Imperial special, is how it incorporates such a deep strategical gameplay into such a realistic theme-oriented game. Again, just as in real-life and especially with more players, reading the climate and being opportunistic is vital to a successful investment strategy. There are many games that are deeper, and many that are more thematic, but none that is so deep and so thematic at the same time.
As such, more so than any other strategical game, Imperial lends itself well to a post-game discussion of what transpired during the course of the game. "Italy shut down Marseille" is much more memorable than "trading tobacco before another player could."
For those who put in the time and effort to get over the initial hurdle (and it is a big one), the reward is well worth it. Imperial is a game that can be played for a life time without exhausting its depth and replayability.
OPENING
Not necessarily the best opening move, but certainly one that is the easiest to use, is to buy high bonds (6 and 9) in the early turn countries, investor and use the cashback to buy bonds in the later country before they investor. This opening takes advantage of cashback.
Another opening I've seen used with much success, is to control the last two countries (Germany and Russia), and get the last bond purchase for the opening "round". Suppose I am the next player to purchase bonds and the first four countries investored, I can import with Germany, factory (for the higher taxation bonus) and investor with Russia, and buy out say Italy from another player. This opening takes advantage of the taxation bonus, and requires a lot more calculation to pull off. It works even better if you can take over a country that factoried instead of investor on its first move, which will likely give the owner higher taxation bonus. Note that I do not want to Investor or Factory with Germany because that'd give the player after me a chance to buy out one of my countries that is due for a large taxation bonus when Russia passes the Investor space. Again, $3 can be a lot in the early game. Now suppose every country investored except for Italy which factoried, and you are holding the investor card, then you can import with both Germay and Russia, and when Italy passes the Investor wedge you can take it over. Now you get to tax Russia, Germany and Italy.
PLAYER NUMBERS
I strongly disagree with the common belief that Imperial is not meant to be played by two players. Imperial can be very much a "skill" game in the same sense that Chess and Go are skill games. Would you like to play Chess with three players? I don't think so. As the ultimate test of skill, two players Imperial is the way to go. I've beaten players in three player games I'd have no chance against in the two player game.
Three players Imperial is the most volatile, and most vulnerable to king-making. Almost every other move one makes will be favoring one opponent over the other. I don't have hard data, but my impression is that it has the most drastic changes of country ownerships. It's a crazy game, with wild swings in player balance. Not for the faint of heart.
Four players is more settled down, and players have more limited control. As such, the focus shifts more on predicting what others will do than on what you actually do yourself (as mentioned in the paragraph after the one discussing king-making). Reading and playing the players becomes more important. For example, it is common practice to avoid investing in the same countries as a novice player because he likely won't run them successfully (failing to get cashback or move up the power level track in a timely manner).
With five and six players one has less control still, and it's too little for my taste. I would much rather play Imperial with 2-4.
VARIANTS
I have yet to try the no-investor-card variant, but I am a bit skeptical. The timing of the bond purchase is a huge part of the original game.
I would like to, however, play with open money instead of hidden, especially in a two player game. All serious players will be tracking money in a two player game anyways. With multiplayer, being as chaotic as it is, I can see how there is no need to introduce another factor to analyse into the game.
MY ORIGINAL INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
For reference, this is what I posted when I first started playing Imperial:
Quote:
I am a novice, just played my first eight or so games on BSW.
-I'd rather play with open money. Knowing other players' exact cash is absolutely crucial in deciding when to tax and when to land/pass the investor. In fact, that seems to be the game. Playing with hidden money, a decent player will need to memorize exactly what everyone has...not very fun in my opinion. One can argue that we can just play with the gist of it but I'd argue that it's akin to playing chess without knowing where the opponent king is.
-only played with investor card. It's alright but I'd like to try the game without it.
-I like the game with 3 or 4. More is too many. 2 (played once) actually seem to work fine.
-there seems to be 3 reasons to invest in a country:
1. in game cash injection
2. end game scoring
3. military puppet
Games are usually won by someone owning a huge share of bonds in the country to jump to 25 on the power track. To do that, a player must one, have the cash to buy all those bonds and two, power level that country. 1. helps to accomplish the former and 3. aids the latter.
A country can act as 1, 2 and 3. Cost wise, I think that's the most efficient. But it will slow the country's levelling down because it needs to do so many things.
Actually, cash injection may be a misleading term, because I don't think you ever get more cash back from a country than what you put in. What you do earn is bonds. So what I meant by cash injection, I guess is buying bonds where you can "immediately" get the cash you paid with back. So you effectively "recycle" back the same cash back to your hand, getting a country's bond for "free". You CANNOT, say invest one million in Russia, get two million in cash back to invest in France. You can however, invest one million in Russia, keep the bond and get the one million cash back to invest in France.
So when you buy bonds and investor to get interest, you are basically recycling that same one million bill to buy one million bonds over and over and over and over again.
Another way of getting cash injection is by the taxation bonus offered to the player for raising the tax level. It seems like it's a good idea to seize control of a country right before it taxes with a significantly raised tax level. You immediately get cash back.
So one part of the game is to cycle your cash as fast as possible, because each cycle gives you bonds "for free".
With more bonds, you are in a better position choose a nation, and support it to run away down the power level track.
So when buying a bond, one thing to consider is how fast can you get the cash back. If taxation (with a raised level) is imminent, you can get some of it back immediately.
Another thing to consider is what are the nation's bond worth? They are worth twofold. One for endgame scoring. Two for the possible right to maneuver it to support the nation you want to run away with, or slow down a nation you don't want to advance on the power level track.
Last edited on 2008-09-18 00:29:41 CST (Total Number of Edits: 16)
Posted Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:58 pm
