A few weeks ago we released the Extended Example of Play so players could get a feel for Imperial Struggle’s gameplay. One sharp-eyed reader also spotted a glitch, which will be fixed in the shipping version.
Here, we release some other, shorter gameplay examples. The first one aims to put some of the easier-to-forget rules into practice: specifically, the region-switching rule (which adds extra cost to Action Points of the same type being spent in different Regions on the same Action Round), and Isolation, which can allow Markets to be taken at a very low cost.
The second example is all about damaged Forts. Forts, representing expensive military commitment to a particular area of the map, generally cannot change hands during peacetime. But they can be damaged, during wars or by adverse Event plays, and this provides an opening for the opposing player to seize control even during a peace turn. This example also showcases an important difference between Imperial Struggle and Twilight Struggle. In Twilight Struggle, “daisy-chaining” is always prohibited; in order to place Influence, one must have had control of a connected country from the start of the phasing player’s Action Round. In Imperial Struggle this is also true – if you are trying to shift a Market, and your connection is provided by another of your Markets, then you must have had control of that Market from the beginning of your Action Round. But, if you place a Squadron or a Fort, you can then immediately shift a Market connected to your newly-controlled Naval or Fort space. In this way, provided you have the right types of Action Points, you can exert your influence a little more decisively than in Twilight Struggle.
This is referenced in both the Damaged Fort example and the Guide for CDG players, which you can read for yourself in the new Playbook excerpt. The Guide for CDG Players also highlights a few other examples of Imperial Struggle’s deviations from most other CDGs. Take a look for yourself, and post your thoughts or questions in the replies area!
Previous Article: Imperial Struggle: Extended Example of Play
Author: Ananda Gupta
Thank you–very interesting!
Regarding the “no daisy-chaining” rule: we are still learning TS, and I want to ensure that I understand the rule correctly. When you say, “in order to place Influence, one must have had control of a connected country from the start of the phasing player’s Action Round,” do you mean Control, or merely Presence? In other words, may I place Influence in a country adjacent to one in which I already have Influence (at the start of the AR), but that Influence not yet sufficient for Control?
I am guessing that the change from points-based Influence in TS to “you either have it there or you don’t” in Imperial Struggle is what may be causing my confusion…?
Thanks again! 🙂
Yes, you’re quite right – in TS you may place influence provided you have ANY influence in a connected country; you don’t need to control the country. You are also exactly right that the change from points-based influence to flag-or-no-flag is what caused me to write that sentence, so the confusion is mine, not yours!
Thank you very much for your prompt reply! We are enjoying TS very much, and looking forward to IS with great anticipation! Superb designs, superb production quality! 🙂
Looks so good!