Game: Imperial

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

brendanm — 2008-07-05T09:01:59+00:00

I'd have to put in a vote for Junta.

Ripping off 'development aid'! Laying student protesters down in front tanks and then supporting el presidente anyway! Great fun indeed.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

gesa — 2008-07-04T05:54:49+00:00

You're right, randy. The discussion it stimulated was well worth the hyperbolic title. So, I'll shut up. ;)

...and I guess I am an Imperial fanboy. I can't think of any other game that for which I'd make that claim.

discoking7 wrote:
Fair enough, but he did admit to the hyperbole. I think it was worth it b/c of the high quality discussion that ensued. There are a lot of decent threads that peter out b/c their names aren't interesting enough to bring in the fresh blood.

I think that Imperial has been vindicated very well by the posts above. Fatal flaw indeed...:p;)

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

Kamakaze — 2008-07-04T05:17:59+00:00

I have frequently won the game because of driving my "second" country into the ground completely. IF you dont do that, the other players might consider buying into it and using it. But because I had basically screwed the country over no one really wanted to waste investing into it, so it was an effective shield for most of the game :P

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

ACK ACK — 2008-07-04T04:50:45+00:00

fellonmyhead wrote:
Then there was Diplomacy, but you've mentioned that already. I don't think the concept of inevitable war in Europe with one player representing one country and lying, cajoling and threatening his fellow players is much less cynical than a game in which players are profiteering from inevitable war in Europe.

Well, yes, I'm pretty much splitting hairs to make a point here. And I'm not sure I made my point very well above about the "physical representation of the player on the board".

What I'm trying to get at is that, with some pieces on a game board that are your own--pieces that will always be your own, a player can feel some kind of attachment to those pieces. This is lacking in Imperial. When I was playing, I tried hard to not think "I don't want my pieces to be killed by France." I tried to think "It really doesn't matter what happens to these bits because they might not be mine in a round." This idea is furthered by the relative ease of levying armies and navies in Imperial. Since there's no cost, once the factories are built, except an action, it's not at all a big deal to create and destroy the forces of any nation.

fellonmyhead wrote:
As I recall, my friends never really enjoyed Diplomacy because the necessary underhandedness and back-stabbing just didn't appeal to them. I don't know why, they never had any trouble nuking me into oblivion when we played Supremacy.

Supremacy is a game I haven't played, but it does certainly seem cynical. Nuclear war for fun? This is another category I've thought a little about in relation to my funny idea of "most cynical ever". I've dubbed these games, the games of gleeful destruction.

We might think about a game such as Car Wars or many dungeon crawls in which the main goal is to buff your character(s) in order to better slaughter things. This, to me, seems more of a lark than a truly cynical expression; also these games can be played as RPG-lite games with some kind of good vs. evil story line that casts the player as a hero, even if all the player does is kill everything willy-nilly. As I imply earlier, I'm getting into the realm of the awfully subjective here.

fellonmyhead wrote:
Looking at the 18XX series of games, there is one predominant feature of these games that you seem to have missed - running companies into the ground. Whereas one is laying waste to countries in Imperial one is laying waste to companies in many 18XX games.

This is an excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. I don't have any experience with 18xx other than owning one and desperately wanting to play it and never finding the right time. But, yes, it seems that a good strategy in 18xx is to have a company that is intentionally run into the ground to benefit your "real" company. And that does not happen in Imperial. Sure, you might have control of a country for a while that you don't actually want to end up as the most successful country in the game, but neither can you or should you cripple that country or drive it into bankruptcy.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

discoking7 — 2008-07-04T04:11:36+00:00

Fair enough, but he did admit to the hyperbole. I think it was worth it b/c of the high quality discussion that ensued. There are a lot of decent threads that peter out b/c their names aren't interesting enough to bring in the fresh blood.

I think that Imperial has been vindicated very well by the posts above. Fatal flaw indeed...:p

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

fellonmyhead — 2008-07-04T07:52:55+00:00

You know, now you mention it, I seem to have had a palate for the cynical game all my life.

The first proprietary boardgame I ever played was about bankrupting your friends/fellow players; not gaining more income than them, or getting somewhere first, or even owning the most property. No, you had to bleed them dry, take every penny they had and leave them destitute or victory wasn't yours.

Later on I was introduced to another game, a wargame of sorts. But there was no winning a battle, this was all about world domination. That meant complete obliteration of your allies and enemies alike.

Then there was Diplomacy, but you've mentioned that already. I don't think the concept of inevitable war in Europe with one player representing one country and lying, cajoling and threatening his fellow players is much less cynical than a game in which players are profiteering from inevitable war in Europe.

As I recall, my friends never really enjoyed Diplomacy because the necessary underhandedness and back-stabbing just didn't appeal to them. I don't know why, they never had any trouble nuking me into oblivion when we played [gameid=27].

Looking at the 18XX series of games, there is one predominant feature of these games that you seem to have missed - running companies into the ground. Whereas one is laying waste to countries in Imperial one is laying waste to companies in many 18XX games.

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

Eldard — 2008-07-04T07:05:30+00:00

ACK ACK wrote:
. . . So what do you think? Can you name a more cynical game?

Just keep telling yourself: "It's only game. It's only game." :D

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

wizardless — 2008-07-04T06:40:24+00:00

jpat wrote:
Ain't it grand?

says the fartin preacher :blush:

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

dagibbs — 2008-07-04T04:58:59+00:00

"Rape the treasury!"

Um, I mean, "Investor Phase". Right. Yeah.

Love it. :)

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

BrenoK — 2008-07-04T03:24:25+00:00

ACK ACK wrote:
For extra fun, you can do this "against yourself" with two countries you control. Think about that for a second. You just started a war between two countries you control, solely to increase your personal wealth. Wow.

Well, it's the country's wealth you improve by diminishing the maintenance costs, but I see your point. It really is an evil evil game.

Instant classic!

Thread: Re: Most cynical game ever?

jpat — 2008-07-04T03:00:09+00:00

Ain't it grand?

Thread: Most cynical game ever?

ACK ACK — 2008-07-04T02:53:09+00:00

I had the great pleasure to play Imperial for the first time a few weeks back. It's now too far in the past to write a convincing session report, but I can say that I was happy to place a middling second, with third and fourth places a ways back. This was the first time playing for all four of us, and it won universal renown.

But to the point of my post: I can't think of another game I've played that is more cynical than Imperial. The entire goal is manipulation of nations, wars, and the threat of wars for your own monetary gain.

Let's look at some comparisons.

One similar game is Diplomacy.
Okay, but in Diplomacy, you, the player, take on the role of a nation looking to increase its power through persuasion, intrigue, and force. At no time in the game will you not be looking out for this nation. "You" the player have a presence on the board and thus an attachment to that nation.
This is not true for Imperial. Each player has no physical representation on the board. A player may control Germany one turn and not the next; even more cynically, you may control Germany solely as a punching bag in order to benefit your other interests. Becoming attached to a nation is even a bad idea, strategy-wise.

Another: In the 18xx series of games, the player has no physical representation on the board and the sole goal is to earn the most money. Imperial is the same in these respects but has a crucial difference. Whereas one is laying track on the board in 18xx, one is laying waste to Europe in Imperial. Having played the game only once I may be incorrect, but it seems to me that intentionally destroying your armies and navies is the proper move before taking the taxation action. For extra fun, you can do this "against yourself" with two countries you control. Think about that for a second. You just started a war between two countries you control, solely to increase your personal wealth. Wow.

One game comparably cynical, perhaps, is Nexus Ops. Again, the player is trying to attain wealth (in this case, Rubium) through warfare. You "recruit" aliens for the most part to do your fighting on this backwater planet. (Although, as Diplomacy does, so does this game also fail the "physical representation" test.)
For me, Imperial still has the edge in cynicism though because the setting is historical. Rather than being set in outer space, poor Central Europe is once again an abbatoir.

So what do you think? Can you name a more cynical game?

Note: This post is not meant to disparage the game or anyone who plays the game. I thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to playing again.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

gesa — 2008-07-04T12:46:27+00:00

discoking7 wrote:

To the two posts above: it's a little late to rush in here like a couple of fanboys. The OP did not have the benefit of playing with experienced opponents like you two did on BSW. You may have found Imperial to be flawed too if you did not have examples of good play to follow. Read the entire thread, and you will see some very well articulated posts about this "fatal flaw."

I've read the whole thread now and it is a very good discussion of the game and the difficulties of grasping the play.

I still maintain it was silly to title his review "A Fatal Flaw..." when it is clearly his shallow understanding of the game that is the flaw.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

discoking7 — 2008-07-03T05:36:01+00:00

photocurio wrote:
DavidM wrote:
1. You cannot sell stock.
2. The purchase price of the stock does not change with the company value.
3. The return (interest) on the stock does not change with the risk associated with buying it or how much the country needs it.
4. The opportunity to buy stock depends on whether other investors decide to move round the rondel quickly or slowly and where they decide to land - reflecting everything else that they might want to do such as build factories or invade countries etc.
Well you are not investing in stock, you are granting bonds to the nations. In return for use of your capital, the nation pays you interest. Stocks pay dividends, not interest. You might say this is a purely semantic point, and I agree. But how you name a game component does affect how the game feels.

It is also worth noting that many stock holding games don't have any sort of secondary market for shares. In the 18xx games you can sell stock, as I understand it, but not in Acquire or Wabash Cannonball.

DavidM's point is not that Imperial is a stock holding game. However, several posters above did say that Imperial is more a stock game than a war game. His criticisms are very good to that point. Imperial is more like Acquire than an 18xx game. Acquire is not a stock game, but a stock holding game. A stock game needs the selling aspect as well as the buying. If you approach Imperial as a stock market game, you're bound to be as disappointed as if you approached it like a war game. Imperial is some sort of hybrid.

To the two posts above: it's a little late to rush in here like a couple of fanboys. The OP did not have the benefit of playing with experienced opponents like you two did on BSW. You may have found Imperial to be flawed too if you did not have examples of good play to follow. Read the entire thread, and you will see some very well articulated posts about this "fatal flaw."

Because Imperial is so unlike a war game or a stock game, it is very hard to approach as a new player. Figuring it out takes a lot of time if you aren't playing with an experienced player. I speak from experience here as a player who is still trying to puzzle it out.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

gesa — 2008-07-03T03:48:59+00:00

Kingdaddy wrote:

So enough of the strenuous rebuttal already.

The choice for a title of the review is unfortunate. It implies that Imperial is broken, which it clearly is not. It would have been better to give the review a different title. Then I think it would mostly have been ignored.

It took me about 10 plays on BSW before I started "getting" Imperial. Now it is my favorite. But it is subtle and takes time to grasp.

It does not have a 'fatal flaw'.

Thread: Re: Imperial - A Fatal Flaw keeps me from liking this one

gesa — 2008-07-02T05:12:05+00:00

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but will try to get to it. However, right off I have to say that Imperial does not have a fatal flaw. No way.

I have now played 249 games on BSW and it is a great and well-balanced game.

To play the game twice and make that kind of judgement? You just can't reasonably do that.

This is the only game I rate an 11! :)