Game: Imperium

Thread: Re: Differences between Conflict and GDW versions (NOT I3M!)

xavilongo — 2008-11-04T11:15:49+00:00

One geek here owns one copy with a box like this

]]>
of what seems a GDW first edition (but the Conflict Games logo still exists) and the History book is not present (and not mentioned in the components list). Besides, the mapboard is unmounted, unlike GDW second edition, where the mapboard is in heavy cardstock.

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:41:43+00:00

Turn record chart

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:39:03+00:00

Map

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:38:33+00:00

Cover of the History book

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:37:05+00:00

Covert of the rule book

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:35:10+00:00

Back of the box

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-05T11:34:37+00:00

Front of the box

Thread: Re: Differences between Conflict and GDW versions (NOT I3M!)

kimbo — 2008-05-23T16:13:20+00:00

I own both versions (Conflict and GDW) and just pulled them out of storage. As far as I can see the rule books are exactly the same. Not even a difference in formatting that I can see.

Thread: Re: Imperium (GDW) Rules summary posted

kentreuber — 2008-04-19T14:38:29+00:00

You're absolutely right about that strategy. I've no idea about a fix.

Thread: Re: Imperium (GDW) Rules summary posted

Jon Karlsson — 2008-04-19T10:43:11+00:00

There is a great game here, but it has one problem. How have you solved the I-petition-the-Emperor-for-stuff-so-I-lose-all-wars-until-I'm-very-strong-and-goes-on-to-win strategy for the Empire player?

Image

storvik — 2008-04-13T11:36:40+00:00

Some of Senate cards created for my personal use. Similar to Imperial intervention cards, but effects more modest and more positive.

Image

storvik — 2008-04-13T11:04:21+00:00

Some of the senate cards created for my personal use. Effects weaker than in the Imperial interventions.

Image

storvik — 2008-04-12T13:45:46+00:00

Imperial Intervention card backs. The cards help to decrease the playing time, and to balance the impredictability as preferred by most modern players.

Image

storvik — 2008-04-12T13:41:59+00:00

Imperial Intervention cards. Created to increase the control of the number and times when certain events may happen. Totally 18 cards. There are multiple copies of small impact cards, such as those with no effect.

Thread: Imperium (GDW) Rules summary posted

kentreuber — 2008-01-15T22:21:54+00:00

I played lots of Imperium during college. I've recently had someone interested in playing, so I thought I would dig my late-70's copy out. What a great game! I'm posting a play summary of the game in the files section. I welcome any feedback.

Thread: Re: Missing Page

Nomorebeef — 2007-07-08T01:36:40+00:00

Hi,

I have the game, but I dont know if its the second edition or not. If you still want it, I can get it to you though.

Jamie

Thread: Re: Many questions after first play...

kentreuber — 2007-05-18T16:06:51+00:00

1. You can only place outposts. The outpost becomes a world during peace time, if there enough turns of peace between wars.

2. I believe you can make reactions moves regardless of whether an attack occurs or not. I'd have to check my rules.

Thread: Many questions after first play...

Intrepid — 2007-05-18T07:34:17+00:00

After our first attempt at playing this game we have some rules questions:

1. Can a world marker be placed at any time after the initial game setup? For example, if the Terran player takes Mirabilis can he place a world marker there? or does he place an outpost?

2. Can the reaction movement take place even if there is no combat by the phasing player? For example: after the Terran player's first movement phase and there is no combat, can the Imperial player still perform a reaction movement?

Thanks!

Thread: Missing Page

ahickey — 2007-05-12T03:09:58+00:00

I recently purchased the Classic Traveller CD from Far Future Enterprises. Included on it is a pdf of the second edition of "Imperium" by GDW. Unfortunately one of the pages is missing. I was wondering if anyone who owns the second edition of Imperium (not the Conflict Games version) could send me a copy, I'd appreciate it. I believe it is on a playaid; it is the page that talks about Imperial succession and possible civil war in regards to the Imperial intervention table. Thanks in advance.

Thread: Re: Comabt Rules

AnimalMother — 2007-03-16T02:18:34+00:00

COMBAT
Missile fire scores a hit if the roll of THREE dice of THIRTEEN or MORE, modified by adding the firing unit's Missile strength and subtracting the target's Screen factor (26% chance of hit if firing unit's Missile factor equals Screen factor of target).

Beam fire scores a hit if the roll of three dice of ELEVEN or MORE, modified as above(50% chance of hit if Beam factor equals Screen factor).

Regardless of the Missile Fire Strength and Screening Factor of the starships involved, a Missile fire dice roll misses on a RAW roll of SEVEN or less (a 16% chance), and a Missile fire dice roll hits on a raw roll of FIFTEEN or greater (a 9% chance). The firing unit must have a Beam or Missile factor greater than zero to score an automatic hit with the raw dice.

Similarly, Beam fire misses on a raw roll of 6 or less (a 9% chance), and hits on a raw roll of 14 or higher (a 16% chance).

For example, the 12 strength Missile fire of an Imperial BB has a 16% chance of missing a Terran Scout, Destroyer, or Fighter. The 2 strength Beam fire of a Terran Fighter has a 16% chance of hitting an Imperial BB.

The above yield outcome probabilities not too far from the Tables in the original game's more cumbersome tables. If players prefer more carnage on the first round of a combat, a superiority of TWELVE or MORE for Missile fire and TEN or MORE for BEAM fire should heat things up.

Summary: Roll three dice for firing unit.

MISSILE: auto miss 7 or less, hit on mod roll of 13+, auto hit on 15+.
BEAM: auto miss on 6 or less, hit on mod roll 11+, auto hit on 14+.

Thread: Re: Maintenance Variant (cont.)

AnimalMother — 2007-03-15T13:04:20+00:00

MAINTENANCE
The presence of a Tanker in a stack of starships cuts in half, rounding up odd numbers, their MAintenance cost.

COMBAT
Tankers and Transports can't be targeted until all other enemy units are eliminated.

Thread: Maintenance Rules

AnimalMother — 2007-03-15T04:33:41+00:00

Very good game. But . . . the maintenance rules, the Missile Table, and the Beam Table are clunky and time consuming. I suggest this variant, or something like it, for faster play.

MAINTENANCE
Five starships may be maintained for free at a World, and one (1) starship for free at an Outpost. All other starships must be maintained in full by the outlay of RU, or they are removed. They may be placed on the Calendar Track as replacements. The Terrans can place starships removed for lack of maintenance on the Calendar Track as future replacements.

COMBAT
Each unit picks its own target and fires one at a time. Missile fire scores hits if the firing unit's Missile Fire Factor, plus the roll of two dice, exceeds the target's Defense Factor by seven or more. Beam Fire hits its target if the firing unit's Beam Fire Factor, plus the roll of two dice, exceeds the target's Defense Factor by five or more. Any roll of a twelve with two dice scores a hit, if the target is in range of the weapon, Beam or Missile. Any roll of an eleven or twelve with a Fighter scores a hit, if the combat is at Beam Range.

Thread: Re: Empires in Conflict, Worlds in the Balance

M St — 2007-02-12T11:20:31+00:00

gilesclone wrote:
Imperium can be played as a single scenario or, more rewardingly as a campaign game where each war’s end creates the starting setup for the next one. Surprisingly I’ve never seen this feature in any other war game. Perhaps it was just too far ahead of it’s time.

West End's Web and Starship has that feature. This is another excellent game, as good as Imperium, but is also a 3-player game, a constellation that is hard to pull off. Probably the best 3-player game I have seen.

Thread: Re: Empires in Conflict, Worlds in the Balance

gilesclone — 2007-01-27T19:49:49+00:00

Dark Nebula is okay, but I wouldn't recommend it for the beginner. Our feeling was that it just wasn't as well designed as Imperium. It has some interesting twists tho so if you're an Imperium fan already I would recommend giving it a try. But I don't remember it being in any way superior to Imperium.

Thread: Re: Empires in Conflict, Worlds in the Balance

rsjrev — 2007-01-27T12:55:49+00:00

You might mention the sister game, Dark Nebula. Since it is balanced between the players, would it be a better intro game?

Thread: Empires in Conflict, Worlds in the Balance

gilesclone — 2007-01-27T06:21:37+00:00

Imperium is a two player game of interstellar conflict pitting the fledging Terran forces against one of the provinces of a vast interstellar empire. While the game is 30 years old now it has some very modern features which are still impressive today. It is an asymmetrical war game, with the two sides featuring radically different ships, economics, and politics.

Imperium can be played as a single scenario or, more rewardingly as a campaign game where each war’s end creates the starting setup for the next one. Surprisingly I’ve never seen this feature in any other war game. Perhaps it was just too far ahead of it’s time.

The basic sequence of play goes something like this:
1) First Player Economics/Politics (In the beginning the first player is the Terrans)
2) First Player Move
3) First Player Combat
4) Second Player Reaction Move
5) Second Player Reaction Combat
6) First Player Move
7) First Player Combat
8) Second Player Economics/Politics
9) Second Player Move
10) Second Player Combat
11) First Player Reaction Move
12) First Player Reaction Combat
13) Second Player Move
14) Second Player Combat
15) Check for end of War

The economic/political phase of the game is very different for the two sides. The Imperium gets only small tribute from its possessions but has a budget granted by the empire. This budget can only be increased by making short term political sacrifices which may cause the Imperium to lose the current war, but such increases are generally permanent. The Imperium also has random imperial intervention events on a regular basis. Most of these events are beneficial or neutral, but a few are really disasterous. The Imperium also provides the Imperial player a reliable stream of free replacement ships.

The Terran player on the other hand derives all of their income from their worlds and outposts (worlds being especially crucial). They are immune from the arbitrary influence of politics and try to win by straightforward expansion.

The forces the two sides have available are radically different. Combat is potentially fought at two different ranges with two different kinds of weapons: missle and beam. The Imperial ships are generally well balanced with a good mix of beam and missle weapons. The Terran ships mostly concentrate on beam weapons, which is unfortunate since beam combat is much less likely to occur. To compensate they have built a couple of ships (Missle Boats and Strike Cruisers) that really entirely on missles. While this helps a bit, it also means that Terran forces don’t work together very well.

By and large the quality of small Terran ships is quite poor in comparison to their Imperial counterparts. The Terran big ships are somewhat better than those of the Imperium and the Imperial player must appeal to the Emperor for permission to build big ships but: a) the Imperium replaces lost big ships for free, and b) small ships are generally better than big ships.

With all this it would appear that the Terrans are at a big disadvantage vs the Imperium. But there are a couple of balancing factor:s the Terrans have MORE small ships than the Imperium and the Terran ships are cheaper and easier to maintain. This means that if the two sides have roughly equal positions the Imperium will have an early advantage, but if the Terrans can hang in there, they reach a point where THEY have the advantage. (But if they don’t strike while the iron is hot, this advantage will go back to the Imperium!)

Movement is done on a map that is both point-to-point and hex-grid. By far the most important movement is done by the point-to-point jump routes. When moving point-to-point, movement is nearly unlimited (with two important caveats). Not all ships can move off the jump routes (sublight movement). If they do they only move one hex per phase. Except for Monitors (big ships that can’t jump move) sublight movement is rarely useful.

Ships may move any number of jumps during their own turn. But if they encounter even a single armed enemy ship they must stop. In practice this means leaving sacrificial small ship stacks out to prevent the enemy from penetrating deep into your territory. The long term effect on play is that both sides tend to build up large forces until one side either has a big advantage and tries to push it, or decides to risk it all on a big battle.

The other caveat about movement is the Reaction phase. The player who has the turn takes a normal (unlimited) move and then the other player gets a “Reaction”. The reacting player can only move one stack and can’t move any ship in that stack more than 3 jumps. This feature breaks up the down-time of the play sequence.

Combat occurs on three different levels: ship-to-ship (the most common and arguably most important), planetary interaction, and ground combat. The ship to ship combat is simple and fun, if not in anyway realistic. The other two combat levels are somewhat lame in comparison, but essential for winning the game.

Combat uses a series of combat results tables. Ships at long range use the missle table, ships at short range use the more deadly beam table. All combat begins at long range and is randomly determined after that. Planetary interaction depends on the number of missles the attacker has and then the type of target being attacked.

Ground combat is carried out by ground troops of two types. Jump troops are generally more powerful than regular troops and have advantages landing on planets, but against pure regular troops they are attacked before they can retaliate..

Winning and losing individual wars is determined by the glory level. Glory goes up when the Imperial player conquers worlds and outposts. Glory is lost when the Terran player conquers worlds and outposts and when the Imperial player appeals to the Emperor. As the war drags on, the level of Glory required for a victory becomes narrower (higher for the Terrans, lower for the Imperium).

After a war has ended in a campaign there is a peace sequence. Long term peace causes both sides to lose many ships and other forces to attrition, but it also allows conquered worlds to switch sides. The terms of peace are, strangely enough, more severe for the winners than for the losers (one of the few rules I disagree with). I think the idea is to rebalance the situation. But the Imperium can often “lose” the war while gaining territory which is devastating for the Terrans.

Imperium is probably the best two player strategic space war game ever created. The campaign game is an epic battle for survival. The forces are asymmetrical yet carefully balanced. The strategies for winning must take into account the numerous economic and combat difference in the two sides.

While I believe the two sides are well balanced, it is much trickier to play the Terrans well. The advantages of the Imperium are more clearly obvious and the play of their forces is simpler and more generally aggressive. But the more obscure Terran advantages can become overwhelming if the Terrans are allowed to grow.

Overall Ratings:
Components: 7/10 nothing special, the map is cool tho.
Rules: 6/10 could be much clearer.
Complexity: more complex than Hammer of the Scots, less complex than Wilderness War.
Balance: 8/10 tho less experienced players will have a hard time with the Terrans.
Replay value: scenario 5/10 (why would you only play the scenario?) campaign 9/10
Luck: moderate – lots of dice rolling, but so much it tends to balance out. Terran players will curse the range roll, Imperial players will curse maintenance and appeal rolls.
Tactics: 7/10 the map has its tricks and traps and matching up in combat is not without its pitfalls.
Strategy: 9/10 knowing what to build, when to end wars, when to fight, when to conquer are all very difficult calculations.

Overall: 8/10

This is an excellent game. In many aspects way ahead of its time. It has some dated features (four pages of charts to roll on, poorly written rules) but after all these years I haven’t seen a better two player space war game.

(NOTE: Do not confuse this with the Avalanche Press game that followed!)

Thread: Differences between Conflict and GDW versions (NOT I3M!)

gilesclone — 2006-06-14T20:17:43+00:00

Besides rules formatting, does anyone know if there are any differences in the Conflict Games version versus the GDW version?

I used to own the Conflict version and I just got the GDW version. It's been so long I can't remember what if anything has changed.

Thread: Multiplayer PBeM game starting

hcobb — 2005-05-13T00:24:11+00:00

Yes, GDW's Imperium as a multiplayer PBeM game.

I have governors for both sides now and will soon be accepting applications for officers of the Imperial and Terran sides.

http://www.io.com/~hcobb/i3m/

-HJC

Thread: First turn

hcobb — 2005-03-31T01:06:56+00:00

I'm still working through the best setup for the first turn under the second edition.

Imp fleet with monitor sitting at Agidda.

Terran first move drops a scout on Sirius, an outpost, troop and PDU on Procyon and two outposts on red dwarfs in Sol's backyard. The Monitor is on BS, rest of the Troops and the other PDU on Earth with the Fleet sitting on Alpha Centauri.

Imp reaction move is to mug the monitor with CLs acting like Missile Boats.

Terran second move is to place one SC on Earth and Procyon and pull all the transports to Alpha Centauri.

Imps roll for disruption on BS and then either withdraw or get the Terran fleet reacting on top of them.

Right?

Thread: Re:Slowing down the other player's movement

hcobb — 2005-03-28T07:40:34+00:00

Talenn (#59665), The Imperial advantage is that they always lose every war by begging money from the capital which increases their income while halving what the terrans get for the peacetime builds.

The big Terran counter to this is that they don't need money during peacetime because their entire battleline of (TRs, MBs, SCs and MSs) are all maint-1 ships so only 1/6th of them are lost during even the longest times of peace. (Terrans should never ever spend even one RU for maint.)

The secondary way to overcome this is to win a war on the last turn of a depression so that the Imp budget is also cut, by dropping jump troops on an outpost as the very last action during a turn. (Since the Imp will have whinged his way down to low glory this should be enough to win the war right there.)

Then as the winner of the war, the Terrans spend 10 RUs to drop an Outpost and Monitor on the system and the Imps will need to maintain or build CLs to knock it off.

Yes, the TR is a battleline ship for the Terrans as an empty transport blocks either beam fire (for one round) or missile fire (for a few rounds) while the Terran warships gangbang selected Imp targets.

I3M speeds up movement by breaking the big "infinite movement" phases of the original into smaller chunks so that you can force more battles per turn and it removes the transports as armor bug in three ways.

http://dmoz.org/Games/Board_Games/Science_Fiction/Imperium_3...

-HJC

Thread: Re:Slowing down the other player's movement

Talenn — 2004-10-13T19:58:32+00:00

donzo (#49601),

Yes, I agree that this 'exploit' is actually a necessary game mechanism. The trick is learning to use your reaction phases to kill off the lone ships or to leave just enough of your own ship along the critical paths to prevent the enemy from doing so. In this way you can get a number of small skirmishes that occasionally lead to a large action as opposed to an all or nothing slugfest over someone's critical world on turn 1.

donzo, why do you think the Imperials have a long term advantage? I dont necessarily disagree, but I'm curious what you see in them that makes it so.

To me, they have the superior ship set because you know your missiles will always be used, every battle...not so for the beams. The relative ease of disengagement means that a fleet can come in, declare High Intensity strikes and then leave the following turn after causing the casualties.

Of course for this to work, your opponent has to be on the defensive (not much good to use it if you are giving up critical systems). Also, for a relatively small amount of points, the Terrans can simply screen with Scouts (or better, Fighters) and blunt the true effectiveness of the tactic.

On the strategic side, I dont see a huge Imperial advantage. Sure, they get free replacements and can get free ships etc, but they can also be required to lose ships (at least temporarily) and the lack of ability to build Capital ships can be difficult to overcome if the Terrans get some rolling. The Terrans also have a better shot at increasing their econ in the long term.

Overall, I rate the balance as pretty good. The 'Peace' turns tend to wash away much of the advantage of winning the previous wars.

Thread: Re:Slowing down the other player's movement

donzo — 2004-08-16T18:36:44+00:00

You know, when I used to play this game way back, we quickly
understood this "flaw" and used to especially leave fighter
units covering systems "behind the lines" to slow down the
opponent if your main fleet failed.

I guess, yes, it does stop the "once I defeat your main
fleet I can cruise to your homeworld and destroy your
pathetic terran civilization in one war" effect, but I
thought this was a good thing?

This rule seemed deliberate... for example, in the phasing
players first move, he could attack a strong base and then,
assuming the nonphasing player didn't counter in his
reaction phase, the phasing player could withdraw his main
fleet leaving a single scout placeholder so that his main
fleet was intact.

When we played this game it became more of a game of
building up a fleet until you could be ballsy enough to
leave it on your front and not fear a disasterous counter...
it was still a good game.

The problems with the game were more of long term balance.
We found in any grudge match that the Imperium had a
strong advantage.

Don

Thread: Re:Slowing down the other player's movement

Karlsen — 2004-07-01T08:14:21+00:00

The Maverick (#25474),

You were talking about two teenage male wargamer maths/science students. Rules Lawyering was in our blood. OK neither us grew up to be acutal lawyers, but you can't get many better rules lawyers than that

Once the flaw is there it is just a matter of degree of how ,uch you have adjusted it as opposed to fixed it. Overrun rules for a certain number or strength of ships? Must be x or more ships? Neither are what I would call entirely satisfying.

P.S. I wish you got notified when somebody replies to your article just like geeklists. It's not entirely often that I stop by my previous articles

Thread: Re:Slowing down the other player's movement

The Maverick — 2004-01-11T08:56:10+00:00

Karlsen wrote:

This changed the dynamic of how we had been playing the game and made it a bit boring compared to before. We moved on to other games after a while.

I'm often surprised when people "rules lawyer" a flaw like this into a game they enjoy, and then just don't "fix" it with a simple house rule... For example, one could require that the blocking ships have at least half the combat value of the moving fleet in order to block it, etc., etc.

the Mav

Thread: Slowing down the other player's movement

Karlsen — 2003-09-12T16:53:17+00:00

A friend and I used to play this game a lot until we worked out a slow down the opposition strategy based on this part of the movement rules "Thus, each of the players' ships may continue making hyperspace jumps until a hex lacking a fuel source or containing one or more enemy starships with attack factors is entered.".

A large fleet can be stopped by a single small combat vessel. It will, of course, be destroyed but has slowed the enemy fleet. Leaving one of these blocking vessel in each of two jump points out from your system means that your system is immune to attack for that turn.

This changed the game from quite a fast flowing one to a somewhat slower one. From memory (and I wouldn't have played Imperium for over 15 years now) there was a strict number of game turns thus the sacrificing of small ships could be very effective.

This changed the dynamic of how we had been playing the game and made it a bit boring compared to before. We moved on to other games after a while.

That said I do remember this game quite fondly and would quite happily play it again some day. I wonder if my friend still owns it?