Christopher Beck
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
The Electronic Eremite
-
Everybody Wants to Rule the World
The Boardgame Geek is no place for an addict. I was completely ignorant of Imperial 2030, and its predecessor Imperial, until last weekend when that old itching for something new, strategic, and with a touch of economics, crept back into my brain. I had a boardgaming session planned for later that week, and I really wanted something that was fun and dynamic, that didn't rely solely on warfare, that emphasized making money and economic expansion as a path to victory. While checking out another game, I saw references to this "Imperial" series, and immediately took note. As a European Historian by trade, the word "Imperial" immediately catches my eye. So when I saw these Imperial games incorporated conquest, the buying and selling of bonds, and a dynamic system of control over several different Great Powers, it looked like just the ticket. Despite my love of WWI and Europe, I opted to get the most up-to-date version (pretty much only because of the good word of mouth and the global map) - Imperial 2030. Having now had a chance to play the game (unfortunately, only once) I can say that I was pleasantly surprised and left wanting to play more. In fact, because of its relatively simple rules, its emphasis on influence over sheer conquest, and its amazing depth of strategy (for such a streamlined ruleset), Imperial 2030 has bought its way into my lest of favorite games and has left me wanting to play many more sessions.
Money, it's a drag...
Imperial 2030 (hereafter I2030) has a relatively unique system of player interaction with the board. Like many "global conquest" games, there are six "Great Powers" (the US, India, Russia, Europe, China, and Brazil) which will vie for territorial dominance over a selection of neutral territories, like most of Africa and Canada (in your face Canucks, your just a empty region in 2030) in an effort to gain power and wealth. However, unlike these other global conquest games, the players are not directly associated with these six powers. Instead, players represent shady investors, operating from Zurich, whose money grants them the influence to be shadowy puppeteers of these armed titans. In game terms, control over each of these six powers is granted to the player who has "invested" the most into that nation. Players do this by, during one of the game's actions, buying bond cards (which come in denominations of 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 15, and 30 million - and there is only one bond of each denomination). So, for instance, if one player owns the 9 million bond of the United States, and the other players own none or one of the lesser bonds, then that player will get to decide what action the US will take during the country's turn. The implication behind this mechanic is clear, control of these nations is highly variable, and you can expect countries to change hands depending upon how the players invest throughout the game. You can't get to attached to any one nation, as control of it can (relatively) easily be snatched from your grasp. Bonds can be bought by the player holding a special Investor card, when any nation takes an "Investor" action. The person with the Investor card gets a free 2 million bonus from the bank and can buy any bond from any nation (not owned) or trade an existing bond back to a nation, grab a higher value bond, and pay the difference (i.e. trade a 9 mill bond back to the nation and buy a 12 mill for 3 mill from their personal funds). The investor card is then passed to the player on the left. Players who do not have control of any nation are granted a special "Swiss Bank" token, which will allow them to invest after the person holding the Investor card during an Investor action (but without that free 2 million). This levels the playing field a bit, allowing players to quickly grab control of another nation if they are pushed out by their competitive rivals.
As countries can change hands, victory is, obviously, not country specific. The winner is not who can hold the most aggressive, or largest country at the end of the game (although these things help) but who owns the most valuable bonds combined with the most cash on hand. Each bond is worth a certain amount of interest, which denotes the bonds value to the player, and this interest amount is modified by the "power level" of the granting nation. As a nations tax revenue increases, via building factories and conquering neutral territories, its number of power points will also increase. For every five power points, the nation's bonds gain a multiplier to their value. To illustrate, in the beginning, nations have 0 power points. From 0-4 points, each of the nation's bonds would be multiplied x0 at the end of the game, to determine their value (obviously not a good thing). Upon reaching 5 PP, the bonds' interest get a x1 multipler, a x2 at 10 PP, x3 at 15 PP, x4 at 20 PP, and a massive x5 at 25 PP. When any nation hits that 25 PP mark, the game is then over (at the end of the current round) and the value of bonds and cash is calculated. The person holding the monetary value is the winner.
To Everything Turn... Turn.. Turn...
Because control of nations is variable, I2030 uses a set order for which each nation with take its action. During each round, the person controlling Russia will go first, followed by the controller of China, India, Brazil, the US, and ending with Europe. Nations can't just take any action (well they can during the first round) but after this first round, their actions will be chosen by advancing clockwise around a rondel containing action spaces - such as maneuver, taxation, factory, production, import, and investor actions. The controller can chose to advance up the rondel from 1-3 spaces for free, and pay additional money from his personal treasury (more on this in a bit) to advance additional spaces. While there are two spaces, equally position on the rondel, for maneuver (which lets you move fleets and armies) and production (which lets the nation build fleet and armies) there is only one space for some of the more important actions, like taxation and the ever important investor. This means that actions must be chosen wisely, and planned in advance - if you want to reach taxation within the next turn, you might have to skip other actions to be within 3 spaces of it, or be prepared to pay the price to advance.
At first, the rondel seemed to be relatively simple and of low strategic importance. Every action was equally important and each helped the player achieve a goal. However, as the game neared its close, the rondel became a sudden source of scrutiny and anxiety. Would I, who had Brazil at the cusp of hitting that ever-so-precious 25 PP mark be able to hit the taxation action (where power points are assessed and added to the country's total) before Russia did? Suddenly the icy realization hit that I had spent too much money investing in my previous turn, and could no longer buy my way to taxation, and I had to waste time on a pretty much useless maneuver phase! It was then that the genius of the rondel appeared - too many spaces forward means waiting a full revolution around the rondel to hit certain spaces... to few spaces forward and you slowed your advance around to juicer spots. As you can't block other nations from hitting the same spot as you - nations can share spots on the rondel - it isn't about seizing important spaces, it is about making sure that you make all the proper moves to fulfill your plans within the limitations of the action space progression (and, of course, without having the nation you were making plans for bought out from underneath you when another person hits the Investor spot).
War... huh... Good God Y'all! What is it Good for?!
Interestingly, the warfare in I2030 is like a strange mix between Small World and Diplomacy. There are only two types of units in the game Fleets and Armies (denoted by nice wooden boat and tank meeples - now you can have tanks roll through your fields in Agricola). There are no dice rolls, and battle results in a 1:1 loss of units for each side. What I mean is, if a US fleet, moves into a European held sea zone containing one European fleet, then both fleets are destroyed and removed from the board (and the zone remains in European control). In order to control a zone, an army or fleet must be the only one remaining in the zone at the end of the turn (i.e. it would have taken two US fleets to enter that above zone, leaving one US fleet and the US would take control of the sea zone). The same is true with armies and land zones. Armies can be convoyed over sea by traveling across a string of fleets (similar to Diplomacy or Cyclades), with one fleet able to carry only one army per maneuver (i.e. it would require 4 fleets, two in each zone, to transport two armies over two sea zones).
The battles system is exceedingly simple, but completely devoid of luck (and yet still a wargame... sorry, insider joke). The system becomes a bit more nuanced by allowing fleets and armies to coexist if the owners agree to be peaceful (something that isn't guaranteed until the actual move is made). This is particularly useful if say, like me, you controlled Brazil and the US and wanted to allow both powers to spread east without conflicting with one another. Also, the ability to be neutral or allied and coexists means that temporary alliances can be formed, powers can cooperate, and backs can be stabbed when deals are reneged. Neutral territories and sea zones can be claimed, and these will increase tax revenue) but the territories of other great powers cannot be conquered (they are simply blockaded and prevented form producing or shuttling units). By not allowing conquest of the other great powers, the game becomes less about obliterating your opponents (which you can do) and more about hitting their wallet by removing zones of taxation or blocking factories (which build units and provide taxes). The system works well, and promotes a crazy land rush that often results in early conflict that might be resolved by an arms race, or alternatively by a bond buying race.
What increases the strategic depth of the game, beyond the bonds, the changing control of nations, the rondel, and the basic conquest, is the "Separate Treasuries" mechanic. There are three types of "banks" in the game - a general bank, each nation's distinct treasury, and each player's treasury. The nations are paid by taking the taxation action (paid from the bank for their factories and territories held) and by players buying bonds and "investing" in the nation. Nation treasuries are used to pay for factories and units, and pay players interest based upon the bonds they hold when that nation takes the Investor action. Players are only paid by the investor action and may not otherwise take money from the treasury of a nation. The person controlling the nation has to pay opponents investing in the nation BEFORE paying himself - and must make up any shortfalls out of his personal treasury. This dual treasury system is elegant and extremely interesting. It means that, with some nations, you might want to simply pilfer their treasuries in order to afford the bonds of other, more powerful nations. Other nations you might need to be more careful - building up money to afford factories and units, and watching to make sure to not take the investor action if the nation can afford to pay all of its interest. There is a lot to think about with this, but it is what makes the game much more exciting and compelling, and pushes the otherwise simple strategies to the next stage (also remember, all that money in the nation's treasury that you built up can easily go under the control of a rival investor, who can alienate the funds in ways that mess with your plans).
This is the End... my only friend, The End
Personally, I found I2030 to be a vastly enjoyable experience, with very little downsides. The game was tight and clean (although, for having such simplistic rules and such a short rulebook, I found myself consulting it more than I had anticipated - I put this down to first time learning, and doubt this would be repeated in the future). The game is very easy to teach, 10-15 minutes of explanation (the rulebook is so short, you can almost just read it to the players). Really grasping the system, however, can take a bit longer - and the dual, separate treasuries can really mess with some players' heads for the first few turns. The strategy behind the game is a tad subtle, so for a while players might feel that they are just "taking a shot in the dark" with each of their actions. There was definitely a "Eureka" moment when one of the players says "I have no incentive to be directly aggressive with you, nor even control a specific nation - all I need do is make sure that I have invested significant quantities in certain nations and I support their rise in power." One of my gaming group, my father - who was brought up on a strict boardgaming diet of Risk (but who now semi-comfortable plays Twilight Imperium, and wins) has the most trouble adapting to the thought that control over a nation was not 100% needed to achieve victory. Still, future plays will go much smoother, now that everyone understand how the game works.
I2030 is also pretty confrontational, as with any global conquest game. Rather than be just irritated when you lose territories, in I2030 you can lose control of entire countries - and watch are your rival takes your plans and goes a completely different direction. It isn't like Small World, Vinci, or History of the World, where loss of your faction and territory feels inevitable - you are typically surprised when your rival chooses YOU country, out of the six, to grab the largest bond.
I would say also that there might be a bit of a "runaway" effect with the victor, but this is very hard to tell as the relative strengths of the players is a bit more difficult to ascertain (although certainly doable, for people who love to sit and calculate their next purchase by adding up the powers of the other players). Also, I2030 can be rather punishing - one wrong buy or move can certainly cost you, much more in the late game than in the early.
A word about components. The board is relatively attractive and well made (it contains two sides, but they are identical - one is in English and the other in German). The bond cards and nation control cards are good, heavy stock cardboard and the meeples are attractive and well/brightly painted. My only criticism is the paper money, although it is printed on heavier card stock paper - I still don't care for using paper money. We substituted poker chips for the paper money and, while it made it harder to hide you cash on hand from people, it just felt "cooler" and gave a neat representation of how much money was in each nation's treasury (and this is supposed to be readily visible). As a side note: there are a few rule variants printed in the rules, including one that removes the Investor card, for players that want less switching of control over nations. But many people feel the Investor card improve the gameplay - still, it is nice to have the option.
All in all, I2030 is a streamlined affair - our first game took up 3 hours, but future plays will go down to 1.5-2. The game is dynamic, tense, confrontational, and highly strategic fun. If you have ever had aspirations of playing a hidden financial overlord, pulling the strings from his banking Illuminati in Zurich - then I2030 is the game for you!
You might like it if: You like Diplomacy. It seems odd, but there is much in I2030 that reminded me of Diplomacy, in a much less cranky and long-winded fashion. Although we did not do this much in the first game, I could see how an almost "Diplomacy like" hedging and creation of temporary alliances could occur in games with veteran players. Fans of economic sims, like Steam or Brass may enjoy the investing aspects (and the similar idea of building a network of fleets to move armies to control other areas). If you like games like History of the World or Risk, and other global conquest games - if you can give up the reliance on dice rolls and luck, you will certainly enjoy the dynamic nature of I2030. Finally, people who area control games, like El Grande, might find a lot to like here, as you can control an area, get "scored" by the taxation action, and then move on to other plans that no longer include said area (countries can never lose acquired power points). Speaking of Acquire, if you like the stock market and area control aspects of Acquire, you will likely enjoy I2030.
You might hate it if: If you feel that every game should have a luck component, then I2030 is not for you. There is almost no luck involved, outside the initial randomization of startup bonds (and the nations all have their strengths and weaknesses). Despite the use of armies and fleets, the base game is one of economics and area control - so if you don't like thinking more about your bank account than you units on the board, give I2030 a pass. Finally, the calculating of bonds and deciding what and when to buy certain bonds can be a bit of a brain burner - I wouldn't say as bad a Powergrid, but more skilled players will keep track of other people's interest totals and act accordingly. If this sort of "internal math" bothers you, I would still say give I2030 a try, but be prepare to not be quite as successful as the players who do mental calculations (it all depends on how hardcore your gaming group is).
-
Eric Flood
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
You should certainly give the original a go. Having played both, Imperial is the one I keep returning to. Map balancing and specific rules just work better in the original. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find. I2030 is still worth playing, though.
I also highly recommend playing without the Investor Card, but there are certainly people around who enjoy playing with.
And I would recommend playing Chicago Express, if you have not already, if you enjoy this. While very different games, the gamefeel is very similar.
-
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
Old Ways Are Best!
Check Six!
-
You've made a number of interesting observations and have an enjoyable writing style, but the overall thrust of the review seemed to me to emphasize the "global conquest" aspect of the game as opposed to the primacy of your investment strategy. I realize you've made it clear that the game is not all about conquest, but then go on to conclude that if you liked Diplomacy, History of the World or Risk, you might like this game. Other than the map and components, there is virtually nothing similar about the game play between this game and Diplomacy and even less between this and the other two. There will be times when you'll be appearing to perform actions similar to those of the "conquest" games but it is just appearances.
This is a pure investment game. If the game play resembles anything it would be that of 1830 or most other of the 18XX series. Chicago Express would be another good comparison. Instead of building a network of rails and delivering goods, you are building factories and military units to maintain a network of tax producing areas - but the real essence of all these games is investment strategy and it is possible to win this game without ever controlling or conquering anything.
-
Christopher Beck
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
The Electronic Eremite
-
Thanks Richard, for bringing up 1830 - I had totally forgotten it! I have never played the boardgame version of 1830, but I have played the old PC game and I agree, it is very much in the same style as I2030.
I disagree that I2030 is nothing like Diplomacy. In fact, the army movement, the convoy rules, the 1-to-1 strength of the units, and the focus on increased power via increased territorial control are all similarities.
I mentioned HotW and Risk merely because, I was a fan of those games, as are many of my gaming group, and they liked the game for the territorial control aspect, mixed with the dynamic investment part of the game (rightfully said, the largest part). The "You Might Like It If" section reflects purely my personal feelings and isn't meant to be the end-all-be-all of the review.
I have never played Chicago Express, but it sounds interesting. Regrettably, I've got a lot of other boardgames I am going to play (next on my list is Steam, Defenders of the Realm, and DungeonQuest - once released) and I'll probably have to pass on it.
Re:Eric,
I'll try to look at the game without the Investor card, but from the opinions here at BGG, it seems that more enjoy the card than not. I actually found the original Imperial on Amazon.com - http://www.amazon.com/Rio-Grande-Games-75RGG-Imperial/dp/B00.... However, I weighed out the options and read other people's comparisons and decided I2030 sounded more like what I wanted. Someday, when we get tired of the I2030 map, we will probably get the original one (if we can still find it).
-
Eric Flood
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
It's been discussed elsewhere, and I don't want to start up a war, but I and many others feel that the Investor card adds an additional level of gamey-ness onto an otherwise interesting system. It severely constrains your ability to purchase, and largely collapses your buying decisions to simply buy only the largest bond possible whenever you get the card.
The game is much more dynamic without the card. There are arguments that countries don't change hands very much without it, but I imagine those players aren't playing very well. We have on the order of 5-12 changing of hands over the course of a game, depending upon the game. It's more dynamic because the bonds are able to be purchased at any time, the President must constantly re-evaluate if they are comfortable with losing control, and let someone else have the chance to take over - or not, whether they want to defend it.
Anyway, those are some of the arguments in favor for no Investor card.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
The game is also much more cash-starved without the Investor Card, resulting in fewer (total) bonds being bought, making each individual purchase a larger fraction of that player's score etc, and thus generally raising the size and difficulty of bond-purchasing commitments. I find these changes to be significant improvements.
-
Christopher Beck
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
The Electronic Eremite
-
So, if I read the rules correctly, playing without the Investor card allows all players to invest in the current nation after it takes any action (starting with the owner and then going clockwise)? I can see that this is less "gamey" but I would also think that the game would slow down considerably. Is this the case? I guess what I would worry about is the feeling that one should just stick with one country and attempt to dominate only that with no other incentive to invest outside their initial bonds distributed (or is the no-Investor card variant done best with the setup variant of choosing your own startup bonds?). Because all of the nations are relatively equal, why wouldn't I just keep buying - say the US - and bother about buying China?
But I don't want a huge discussion here - if either of you have a decent link to another forum topic where this is extensively discussed, I would welcome reading it.
Perhaps I'll suggest that we play with the variant next time and see how we like it!
-
Eric Flood
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
I don't think anyone plays with handing out the bonds at game start, aside from a first game experience. It's terrible.
If you're worried about everyone staying in their own country, then next time you play, if everyone is doing exactly that, diversify your investments. With even moderate skill, you'll win handily, even over the person who put all their investments in the country that pays out X5 in the end.
The nations are *not* identical, at any given point in the middle of the game. Realizing that, realizing what country will do well militarily next, what country will do a good taxation next, what country will do Investor next - these are the key elements you should be concerned with.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
baelthazar wrote: ...I would also think that the game would slow down considerably.
It tends not to simply because all the players are so poor that no purchases are possible.
Quote: I guess what I would worry about is the feeling that one should just stick with one country and attempt to dominate only that with no other incentive to invest outside their initial bonds distributed...
It is hard to blame a game design for players who play badly.
Quote: ...(or is the no-Investor card variant done best with the setup variant of choosing your own startup bonds?)
That is the preferred method to start the game in all cases, with or without the Investor Card.
Quote: Because all of the nations are relatively equal, why wouldn't I just keep buying - say the US - and bother about buying China?
Because other choices are variously more profitable or change the mesh of player-incentives toward your interests.
Quote: But I don't want a huge discussion here - if either of you have a decent link to another forum topic where this is extensively discussed, I would welcome reading it.
This area was extensively discussed in the Imperial fora.
-
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
Old Ways Are Best!
Check Six!
-
Playing without the Investor Card, as JC has pointed out, results in less money injected into the game (although personal tax "bonuses" will be more frequent - but from treasuries rather than the bank). So, while many more investment opportunities are afforded, there isn't a lot of money out there to buy anything substantial. The small bonds will be quickly snatched up so a lot of the auction rounds will be a series of quick passes. Accumulating dividends remains the focus.
It is fascinating to speculate on how this game would play if one could both buy and sell bonds. But, I suppose, that would then make it a stock market game which the designers deliberately chose to avoid.
-
Christopher Beck
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
The Electronic Eremite
-
Well, I don't know how I feel about less money in the game.
I'll be sure to do the "advanced" startup for the next game, and I think everyone will enjoy that quite a bit. I will field the "no investor card" variant and see what others think. I tend to think that at least one of my compatriots will very much support that variant, because he was relatively frustrated that the investor card moved so slowly. I don't believe we had more than 4-6 country changes anyway - and that was using the investor card - but it was our first play, so I put that up as inexperience.
Thanks for the great discussion guys, although it does always boggle me that the reviews here get read more by seasoned players than people interested in checking out the game!  Or maybe it's just vets that comment? Still, your comments make a perfect "addendum" to the review - and I'll be sure to make a write up for our first "investor card free" play session to let others know my views on that! Unfortunately, my gaming group meets rather infrequently (once every other week or so), so it might be a while... 
-
|
|
