How to best use IMP?

[MantaRevan]

Imperialistic seems to me to be only slightly better than aggressive, but it seems to enjoy popularity among higher level players. How does one leverage it to max benefit? Building the great wall and rexing a little seem to be the only clear ways to take advantage of the trait that I can see.

 

[sampsa]

Whip settlers. Don't build the GW.

 

[Seraiel]

Whip settlers. Don't build the GW.

This.

 

[MantaRevan]

Whip settlers. Don't build the GW.

Why is settler whipping more effective with imperialistic than otherwise? Wouldn't it just make settlers easier to hard-build?

Is it that they cost less population?

To clarify, I tend to play from Prince to Monarch if I'm having a good day.

 

[Seraiel]

IMP only multiplies the but not the when building a Settler. As the whip is only, it's much more efficient than hard-building with IMP. It's a reason to go early BW in almost all cases when playing an IMP-leader.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Unless you're working mines, cows, ivory, etc.
(To an IMP leader, a plains hills mine is equal to a wet corn (!) for the purpose of building settlers.)

Being IMP and having non-forested hills at hand is actually a strong argument in favour of skipping Bronze Working.
Because one has such an easy time producing settlers.


As for "RExing a little", it is one of the strongest things one can do
Cities settled earlier grow earlier as well. Some disagree on this (Fippy) and favour researching straight up to get an early tech edge.

 

[MantaRevan]

IMP only multiplies the but not the when building a Settler. As the whip is only, it's much more efficient than hard-building with IMP. It's a reason to go early BW in almost all cases when playing an IMP-leader.

Thanks for the detailed response. This is very useful.

My grandpa and I both play prince most of the time(although he usually loses), sometimes the same saves. He doesn't really think about the game strategically like I do, so we have a lot of fun discussing strategies and he often learns a lot from me. This will help me explain how to use imp leaders better to him.

Based on this, what second trait do you guys think synergizes best with imperialistic(not counting UUs, techs, or UBs that come with a leader)?

My guess would be EXP since faster granaries means better whipping and easier workers means you can get new cities online faster.

 

[Seraiel]

Thanks for the detailed response. This is very useful.

My grandpa and I both play prince most of the time(although he usually loses), sometimes the same saves. He doesn't really think about the game strategically like I do, so we have a lot of fun discussing strategies and he often learns a lot from me. This will help me explain how to use imp leaders better to him.

Based on this, what second trait do you guys think synergizes best with imperialistic(not counting UUs, techs, or UBs that come with a leader)?

My guess would be EXP since faster granaries means better whipping and easier workers means you can get new cities online faster.

You're welcome .

Many people (incl. me) think Catherine is the best leader for REX. CRE helps imo more with grabbing a lot of land quickly than EXP does, because it allows completele different choices when settling (like food in the 2nd ring) . You won't get a definite answer on this though, because Joao is formidable too. Both start with Mining so could even find BW in a hut, making them equal in starting techs too. Joao has weak fishing as a 2nd starting tech while Catherine has Hunting, both not optimal. One might argue, that Joao is slightly better than Catherine because Fishing has more uses than Hunting, those arguments will come from people playing without Huts though, because having a Scout is at least equal on Normal speed and faster when playing with huts.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Agreed, Cathy is a fearsome RExer and the use of CRE is well explained by Seraiel.
To me, Pacal stands out as well.

You can notice a trend, there.

IMP + CRE is synergic.
EXP + FIN is synergic.

IMP + EXP is redundant.
Redundancy can be a form of power but it may also simply be superfluous.

So, while Joao can expand the fastest, he is actually one of the best leaders to go broke with
Best leaders for RExing are either EXP or IMP (cutting costs on early expansion) and have a complementary trait that helps sustain that expansion and develop the land/cities.

 

[bhavv]

With Cathy you can also rex until broke and research using fast libraries + scientists.

I pop out cities near all available food sources and build libraries for working scientists first until 0% slider. 7.5 BPT per city then wealth on top after currency. It also proivides insane border control, plus adding theatres later.

Now Im gonna play a cathy game again.

Also, unrestricted leaders with Cathy and a UB that benefits from Cre is great. Arabia, Greece, Maya, China are fun to play as.

 

[civfanchambers]

Wouldn't Victoria be a good way to leverage Imperialistic. Imp+Fin lets you rex, then get a strong economy going. Even better if all those whipped settlers are used to build cities along the coast or rivers, specifically flood plains. I too play Prince / Monarch lvl, and find Vicky very useful in setting up a strong early empire. A great alternative to an early rush.

 

[TurinReborn]

hmmm...

I wonder, due to how imp only affect hammers, how would an imp leader playing for the aztecs go? You could probably whip settlers to oblivion.

I might do a game of this to see what happens.

 

[Seraiel]

I believe it's impossible to go broke when playing well, there are just too many possibilities to get .

The synergy of EXP and FIN from Pacal I don't understand.

Viccy is very strong, because FIN is a strong trait and IMP is too, when peacefully REXing. All FIN leaders are strong, because FIN just gives a way better economy. One can really see the difference, when looking at some of the HoF game, I i. e. still remember an early 16xx AD Spacerace which kovcacsflo played with Mansa. It was a completely peaceful Spacerace, so he payed a lot for REXing peacefully, still, it's one of the best games of the HoF. No question, if beating it with a non-FIN-leader would be possible, ofc. it would, but if peaceful REX would be requested, the players who'd try would have a really difficult time. He btw. peacefully REXed to 28 cities .

 

[bhavv]

Victoria is very good for grabbing land and working more cottages.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well I don't find early massive expansion a good strategy. The settlers are expansive and the way city maintenance work make it pretty poor for teching as well, atleast in the early game but then the smaller empire could have snowballed and the huge empire never get to catch up.

Working specalists without getting great people and without representation is at best like working unimproved tiles. With Cathy mass expansion + libraries seems like a pretty weak strategy. While IMP do reduce the cost of the settlers, they are still expansive and then you have to build libaries.

They are just a bit cheaper then workers for creative and then work scientists. Without philosophical it will take 17 turns in which you are in practice working 2 unimproved tiles before the first great scientist come. And then for the second GS you will have in practice worked unimproved tiles for 34 turns. Maybe Im bit to harsh because scientists do give pure beakers and the happycap limits the options anyway. The large empire do not have any advantage at all at getting early great people because with two scientist it just take so long and the small empire could actually have the libraries up faster and then potentially get Code of Laws quicker which is pretty much a requirement to effective specialist and soon pacifism will be unlocked which makes specialist much better.

Now I haven't really played Civilization IV for years so I could be missing a few big things but to me massive early expansion would just slow down the tech rate meaning getting early critical technologies much slower and that mean slow economy development and thus maybe the larger empire is weaker for a long long time and by that time the smaller one could expand with military.

Now if you can somehow get pyramids as well as expand massivly then the Cathy library thing probably become rather strong.

So I would say that IMP should not really look to expand much more then other traits, instead the advantages of playing with IMP is that you can get out settlers a few turns earlier which means better city locations and that these cities are just founded earlier which means they contribute to your empire earlier. The cheaper settlers also mean saving alot of production in your capital so that can mean an earlier library or getting workers out quicker. It is a trait that give you a stronger early game but general in games such as civilization a strong early game means a strong middle and late game.

IMP probably shines the most in food poor starts (slow starts) because this trait can give you much quicker settlers which can matter alot making such games alot easier.

 

[civfanchambers]

Well I don't find early massive expansion a good strategy. The settlers are expansive and the way city maintenance work make it pretty poor for teching as well, atleast in the early game but then the smaller empire could have snowballed and the huge empire never get to catch up.

Working specalists without getting great people and without representation is at best like working unimproved tiles. With Cathy mass expansion + libraries seems like a pretty weak strategy. While IMP do reduce the cost of the settlers, they are still expansive and then you have to build libaries.

They are just a bit cheaper then workers for creative and then work scientists. Without philosophical it will take 17 turns in which you are in practice working 2 unimproved tiles before the first great scientist come. And then for the second GS you will have in practice worked unimproved tiles for 34 turns. Maybe Im bit to harsh because scientists do give pure beakers and the happycap limits the options anyway. The large empire do not have any advantage at all at getting early great people because with two scientist it just take so long and the small empire could actually have the libraries up faster and then potentially get Code of Laws quicker which is pretty much a requirement to effective specialist and soon pacifism will be unlocked which makes specialist much better.

Now I haven't really played Civilization IV for years so I could be missing a few big things but to me massive early expansion would just slow down the tech rate meaning getting early critical technologies much slower and that mean slow economy development and thus maybe the larger empire is weaker for a long long time and by that time the smaller one could expand with military.

Now if you can somehow get pyramids as well as expand massivly then the Cathy library thing probably become rather strong.

So I would say that IMP should not really look to expand much more then other traits, instead the advantages of playing with IMP is that you can get out settlers a few turns earlier which means better city locations and that these cities are just founded earlier which means they contribute to your empire earlier. The cheaper settlers also mean saving alot of production in your capital so that can mean an earlier library or getting workers out quicker. It is a trait that give you a stronger early game but general in games such as civilization a strong early game means a strong middle and late game.

IMP probably shines the most in food poor starts (slow starts) because this trait can give you much quicker settlers which can matter alot making such games alot easier.

I don't see this as entirely accurate. I do agree as will everyone else in regards to "over expansion". But there is a "sweet spot", where you rex to a certain number of cities and stop to build a power house of an empire, even though you still have room to expand. It all depends on the civ, leader, and current map conditions in said game. This is why I personally find Vicky a very strong balanced leader. Good at grabbing land early, then stopping expansion to empire build. From there the sky is the limit as it would be said.

 

[bhavv]

No such thing as 'working specialists without getting GPs'.

Every city has a seperate GP counter. Even without rep, if you are working 1-2 scientists pet city throughout the game, then eventually most of those cities are going to pop a great scientist.

Even if a scientist is the same as an unimproved tile, an unimproved tile doesn't get you great people points.

 

[sampsa]

Even without rep, if you are working 1-2 scientists pet city throughout the game, then eventually most of those cities are going to pop a great scientist.

Keywords bolded. So the cities that ran scientists for many turns but never created a GS were in fact working 0 3,75 tiles. Working such tiles throughout the game is just a disaster.

 

[bhavv]

But it also lets you control your population growth and keep it within the happy cap.

Also regarding that, how do you whip many settlers in the early game without too much unhappiness?

 

[sampsa]

You can control the population growth by whipping, too.

With a single happy resource or being CHA I don't think I've ever experienced happiness issues in the early game while whipping. Without any extra it takes some more skill to manage, but in general 2-pop whip a settler every 10 turns (if IMP, otherwise generally 3-pop whip is better). Growing into temporary unhappiness isn't nearly as bad as people seem to think. Slow-build a worker to cool off if there is no other way.

Edit: In for example CIV Illustrated #3: City specialization explained there are many screenshots that might be useful for understanding the whip: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=547564. Granted, they are not from that early game, but show how you can stack whip anger when you start collecting -resources.