Seeing how the first three Civ games are based on more or less the same concept, your nation is just a bunch of cities, I've wondered to myself if it needs a change. I've started thinking about it more seeing how Civ 3's engine is so complex and unpredictable that even the programmers that created it unleash three new holes by plugging the old one with each patch. I've played Imperialism games and found them to be highly enjoyable as well. I wonder if the marriage of Civ and Imperialism 2 would make a great, fresh game combining the advantages of both.
What I like about Imp 2 is that you have actual provinces with resources in it, not just a city. You don't have to lace every tile with a road or railroad, just have them within one hex of resources tile and connect the road to the capital. Also, the roads actually take resources to build, which I think is more realistic. With the provinces, the armies don't actually have to march tile-by-tile, but march province by province. I actually don't like the Imp 2 idea of delivery an army to any sport in one turn, but maybe it would have Civ's movement points, like if you have two neighboring province towns connected by the roads, it would take 1/3 movement. If they're connected by railroads (completely), then it's instant (they still have to wait until next turn to attack). With it, the battles make much more sense. Instead of one-on-one battles, the whole group of army units (with limits) fight in one battle, which you can fight tactically yourself. More advanced units take advantage of their advantages, not just have better odds in the roll of the dice. The spearman is going to get shot up by a tank before he ever gets close to it. The riflemen, in big number, will decimate hand-to-hand units before they even get in their range. Also, another strength of Imp 2 is that navy plays a huge role, not a token one like in Civ games. If you have the strong navy (which doesn't take 500 years to reach its destination) that will blockade the enemy's port, you will cripple him, since he won't be able to trade safely and collect resources from overseas lands. Here comes the trade model: trading in Imp 2 is much like market, the nations offer their resources each turn, to the most liked nation first, or the one that subsidizes you more. Because of this, you have to maintain good relations with at least some countries. And you need to trade, you probably never have enough resources, and you need to export goods to make money. Tech tree is also better thought out, you can research up to four techs at a time, and spies don't give you techs instantly, just speed up the research. Imp 2 is not the perfect game, but it is very clean and never gets tedious.
Having said that, Civ can also contribute greatly to my dream game. I like their idea of town population, while Imp 2 is basically a centralized game where only your capital matters. Population should probably affect how many tiles you can collect in the province, but production should still be centralized, it cleans up a lot of clutter when you have a lot of cities. The culture could be used to build up provinces in the start of the game, only it shouldn't expand in boring circles, but expand onto tiles you choose or determined somehow else. The reasons is that it's unrealistic to have provinces that all look like circles. I still like the idea to build up stuff like temples and marketplaces in each individual province. It's diplomacy model is also much superior, it just have to be programmed right.
I really like both games, but Civ to me seems outdated and increasingly sluggish towards the end. Sometimes, when I get too many cities, I get tired of babysitting 20 new cities and give up the game. Imperialism 2 is a very well thought out game, it can help Civ to be interesting at all times. Do you think it's a viable groundwork for the next Civ game? Or am I dreaming too much? I want to hear what you think about it, especially those who played Imperialism 2.
What I like about Imp 2 is that you have actual provinces with resources in it, not just a city. You don't have to lace every tile with a road or railroad, just have them within one hex of resources tile and connect the road to the capital. Also, the roads actually take resources to build, which I think is more realistic. With the provinces, the armies don't actually have to march tile-by-tile, but march province by province. I actually don't like the Imp 2 idea of delivery an army to any sport in one turn, but maybe it would have Civ's movement points, like if you have two neighboring province towns connected by the roads, it would take 1/3 movement. If they're connected by railroads (completely), then it's instant (they still have to wait until next turn to attack). With it, the battles make much more sense. Instead of one-on-one battles, the whole group of army units (with limits) fight in one battle, which you can fight tactically yourself. More advanced units take advantage of their advantages, not just have better odds in the roll of the dice. The spearman is going to get shot up by a tank before he ever gets close to it. The riflemen, in big number, will decimate hand-to-hand units before they even get in their range. Also, another strength of Imp 2 is that navy plays a huge role, not a token one like in Civ games. If you have the strong navy (which doesn't take 500 years to reach its destination) that will blockade the enemy's port, you will cripple him, since he won't be able to trade safely and collect resources from overseas lands. Here comes the trade model: trading in Imp 2 is much like market, the nations offer their resources each turn, to the most liked nation first, or the one that subsidizes you more. Because of this, you have to maintain good relations with at least some countries. And you need to trade, you probably never have enough resources, and you need to export goods to make money. Tech tree is also better thought out, you can research up to four techs at a time, and spies don't give you techs instantly, just speed up the research. Imp 2 is not the perfect game, but it is very clean and never gets tedious.
Having said that, Civ can also contribute greatly to my dream game. I like their idea of town population, while Imp 2 is basically a centralized game where only your capital matters. Population should probably affect how many tiles you can collect in the province, but production should still be centralized, it cleans up a lot of clutter when you have a lot of cities. The culture could be used to build up provinces in the start of the game, only it shouldn't expand in boring circles, but expand onto tiles you choose or determined somehow else. The reasons is that it's unrealistic to have provinces that all look like circles. I still like the idea to build up stuff like temples and marketplaces in each individual province. It's diplomacy model is also much superior, it just have to be programmed right.
I really like both games, but Civ to me seems outdated and increasingly sluggish towards the end. Sometimes, when I get too many cities, I get tired of babysitting 20 new cities and give up the game. Imperialism 2 is a very well thought out game, it can help Civ to be interesting at all times. Do you think it's a viable groundwork for the next Civ game? Or am I dreaming too much? I want to hear what you think about it, especially those who played Imperialism 2.
