Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Imperium» Forums » General

Subject: Imperial Campaign Exploit rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Or, *Snigger* we lost the war eh? more points for us!

It's been pointed out in several places that the Imperial player loosing doesn't necessarily loose. He appeals to the emperor for extra goodies, then looses the war to get a bigger pre-war budget. His ships are better at long range and he begins with a tanker. What's not to love?

About the only advantage the terrans have against this is a larger economy, but if the Imprial player is constantly bulldozing their navy the Terrans won't have enough ships to field outposts.

Even if he did, the Imperial player would just take them for glory points, appeal to the emperor, and keep the war going to leave the Terran player in an even worse position (down to his worlds or so I've observed).

Are there any fixes for this? Am I just misinterpreting the situation? What's a popular house rule to fix this exploit for the imperial player?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Nelmes
Wales
Machynlleth
Powys
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you should play the game some more before you start trying to 'fix' it. I've played quite a lot of Imperium and (in my experience - ymmv) it's reasonably balanced as is. If you somehow prevent the Imperial player from 'losing' wars that he actually won or drew, the Terrans will be nearly unstoppable. The Terran player will quickly have an advantage in both economy and technology and can steamroller the Imperials unless the Imperial player can manipulate the wars (and you need to bear in mind that a "further appeals prohibited" result can wreck the Imperial plan). As the Terran player you need to try to shut the Imperials out of sections of the map whilst you build up your economy.

Hope this helps.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kent Reuber
United States
San Mateo
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the 2nd edition of the rules, appeals to the Emperor cost 2 Glory points each, and you can't appeal to the Emperor if it would cause you to lose the scenario. So, you can probably only appeal a couple of times per game unless you conquer some planets.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin Nelmes
Wales
Machynlleth
Powys
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In the second edition you can't appeal if it would reduce the Glory points to zero or below - you can still use it to lose. The Imperial player can start each war with two consecutive appeals to the Emperor (during the first and second turns) and will then lose the war at the end of turn 4 (assuming that no territory is lost or gained).

There are certainly plenty of people who prefer the 2nd edition rules. They address some of the perceived issues with the 1st edition rules that the OP has mentioned. However, they do contain a few typos/points that are unclear.

EDIT: For clarity.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The way I interpreted the rules, Glory point checks are made at the end of the Game turn regardless of who the game turn started with. So you can appeal at the beginning of the turn to end up with a 'lost' result, but if you conquer outposts and get out of the loosing zone by the end of the full game turn, your still good.

So something like Imperial Attention would be in effect but only the Imperial player would be able to make significant use out of that knowledge if he lost the previous war and was going second. IA would only be in effect with his part of the Game Turn.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I wasn't necessarily looking for a fix... I'm still trying to fully understand this game so I was looking for feedback on how it's supposed to work.

A big point is that outpost on Procyon. Without it, I feel the situation might be more balanced to allow the Terran player some breathing room to expand and make things difficult for the Imperial player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
flag msg tools
John Coltrane - Both Directions At Once: The Lost Album
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Norsehound wrote:
I wasn't necessarily looking for a fix... I'm still trying to fully understand this game so I was looking for feedback on how it's supposed to work.

Have you been playing it? That's the surest way to improve your understanding.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've completed two campaigns (about 5+ wars) playing solo so far. I'm trying to better understand the game for the next time I play against a live opponent. Obviously I'm still misunderstanding some of the particulars, which is why I'm here asking
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hansen
United States
Sun Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, the Imperial player can't place an outpost on Procyon with their initial forces. This was covered a very long time ago back in the early 80's by some clarification errata that I have no idea where one would find now short of contacting Marc Miller himself. In any case, the logic behind it was sound; you can only place outposts that are connected. In order to be connected through a tertiary system, you must have a tanker in said system, but the Imperial player can only start the game with ships in systems that he controls, thus no tanker in Sirius, and thus no outpost in Procyon.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the way that I interpred the rules, the existance of the tanker allowed for the placement in Procyon. Obviously this isn't correct.

But it begs the question... at the end of the war, when all units are returned to their capitals, the Tanker is also removed. What happens if the Imperial player had placed an outpost on Procyon and in that general area of space? Would all of those outposts be removed at the end of the war, because they cannot trace a path through Sirius?

In which case, seizing Mirabilis is paramount for the Imperial player in order to sustain outposts through that front. The alternative is a costly war through Barnard's Star...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hansen
United States
Sun Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No, you don't need to have a World on Mirabilis in order to sustain viable outposts on the other side of Sirius as the Imperium during peacetime.

There are two different times and states of Outposts. During War, in order to gain income, they need to be Connected. Meaning no enemy starships blocking the path to a world, and requiring a Tanker to be present if tracing the route through Sirius. Note that the set up instructions specifically require connectivity for the Imperial player.

During Peace, to remain in the game, they need to be Sustainable, meaning there are no enemy Outposts/Worlds blocking the path between an Outpost and and a World. Ships have no bearing on Peace route tracing, nor are Tankers required to trace this route through Sirius. Indeed, the player can trace through several empty system hexes and still have a sustainable Outpost. Do note as well that this check is done simultaneously; so if for example the Imperial player had an Outpost at Ys, while the Terran had Outposts on Procyon, Sarpedon, and Mirabilis, both the Imperial Outpost at Ys AND the Terran Outposts at Sarpedon and Mirabilis would all be removed.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Malczak
United States
Fairfax
Virginia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but an easy way to 'fix' this problem is to play campaigns as a 'best of out 5 wars'. So the first person to win 3 wars of out of 5 wins. If you want a shorter or longer campaign, just make it best 2 out of 3 or 5 out of 7 etc.

It's AMAZING what that one simple change did for us in the game. NO ONE wants to try 'win by losing' in this situation because the resulting advantage is usually not enough to compensate for being a war down in the campaign.

And yes, the whole 'Appeal youself to death' thing bothered us very much before we started playing this way!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Hansen
United States
Sun Valley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like this idea quite a bit Steve. Very nice. It also has the added benefit of being able to set an ending to the game depending on how much time the players want to devote to playing. I'll be giving this a go the next time we play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Ptak
United States
Livermore
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I suppose if players wanted to really fight it out to the end you could make it a factor in the final victory at the end of a campaign:

All star systems + More victories: Total Victory
All star systems + Less victories: Draw

Equal victories when one player has won all star systems gives it to the player who seized all the star systems.

But yeah, good idea. If that redesign of Imperium gets off the ground again I might slip that in to the rules re-write.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Murdock
United States
Euless
Texas
flag msg tools
Talenn wrote:
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but an easy way to 'fix' this problem is to play campaigns as a 'best of out 5 wars'. So the first person to win 3 wars of out of 5 wins. If you want a shorter or longer campaign, just make it best 2 out of 3 or 5 out of 7 etc.

It's AMAZING what that one simple change did for us in the game. NO ONE wants to try 'win by losing' in this situation because the resulting advantage is usually not enough to compensate for being a war down in the campaign.

And yes, the whole 'Appeal youself to death' thing bothered us very much before we started playing this way!


I have used a variant of something like this. If the Imperials lose three consecutive wars there is a -1 modifier on all Appeals. For each additional war lost consecutively there is an additional -1 per war. The modifier is removed once the Imperials win three consecutive wars.

It lets you build up the economy but you have to use caution or fall into a hole where appeals are useless.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harmon Ward
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
In my experience constantly begging for help from the Emperor introduces such a huge range of luck into the game, that myself and my friends do not use Appeals all that much. An Imperial Player who is winning could invoke Civil War or a Depression, which might turn the tide. An Imperial Player who is losing might further damage his chances to success. I have had a few games where the Imperial rolled two Depressions in a row. Yes, he got more Resource Units after the loss, but losing the world gave the Terrans 8 RU per turn. We will see how this pans out in my current game!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Harmon Ward wrote:
In my experience constantly begging for help from the Emperor introduces such a huge range of luck into the game, that myself and my friends do not use Appeals all that much. An Imperial Player who is winning could invoke Civil War or a Depression, which might turn the tide. An Imperial Player who is losing might further damage his chances to success. I have had a few games where the Imperial rolled two Depressions in a row. Yes, he got more Resource Units after the loss, but losing the world gave the Terrans 8 RU per turn. We will see how this pans out in my current game!

I wish everyone who makes a comment like this would specify if they are using the 1st or the 2nd Ed. rules. It makes a big difference.

In my experience begging the Emperor for more money [in 1st Ed. rules] evened out in the long run. Begging for bigger ships was more luck dependent, especially if "Any 3 ships granted" means what it says. I.e. you can get 3 free BB instantly, and then never lose them, well hardly ever.

In my experience it is "Imperial Intervention" that led to the luck dependence. This is because you must roll every turn [of each war, but not in peacetime] for Imp. Intervention. Most of what you said as you elaborated your point was actually Imp. Intervention, not begging for help. Things like Frontier Crisis, Depression, and Civil War can turn the game around, especially if they happen in the 1st war.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harmon Ward
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Agreed. As you have probably surmised, I was writing about the first edition rules, and not very clearly.

The asymmetry of the Terran/Imperial forces in Imperium are one the games strong points, in my opinion. No two games I have ever played worked out the same way.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.