The 19^th century is the age of British hegemony. This hegemony was expressed in terms of economic development, territorial expansion, diplomatic influence, and the capacity to project military power anywhere on the globe. In 1880 the British Empire was by far the largest in the world, including the vast territories of India, Canada, and Australia, as well as key bases straddling the oceans, which allowed Britain to supply its coal-fuelled navy and ensure the protection of its far-flung Empire. The City of London was the financial heart of the developed world, and the British Navy was bigger than that of the two following powers combined.

France in 1880 was also a first-class economic power and Paris was undoubtedly the cultural capital of the world, but the country was still reeling from its defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, which had left deep wounds in French national pride. The Third Republic, established after the abdication of Napoleon III and lasting until the French debacle in World War II, was characterised by political strife and instability. Many in France saw colonial expansion as a necessary balm to recover lost prestige and unify the country in an external venture, as they bided their time until they could take revenge on the new German Empire.

The recently unified German Reich was the youngest power in Europe, but it had demonstrated its military prowess by destroying the supposedly formidable French Imperial Army in a short campaign and capturing the French Emperor, Napoleon III, in the encirclement battle of Metz. The German Empire had prioritized European expansion and Bismarck was at first indifferent to building an overseas empire, an endeavour he considered expensive and of doubtful use. Bismarck’s priority was to build an alliance system that would isolate France and ensure peace in Europe under the terms imposed after the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. All this changed when Wilhelm II came to the throne with very different ideas. The young Kaiser promptly got rid of the aging Bismarck and embarked on a project of global expansion based on naval power that antagonized Britain. Wilhelm also tied the destiny of the Reich to that of the decaying Austro-Hungarian Empire, at the cost of friendship with Russia, which Bismarck had so carefully cultivated.

The United States in 1880 was still healing the wounds of a most bloody Civil War and had established control over the temperate area of the North American subcontinent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Indian territories were being progressively and ruthlessly converted into states, and European immigration fuelled the fantastic development of American economy and industry. The time was coming to apply the Monroe doctrine to the full and replace the old European powers in the Western Hemisphere. This would take the form of economic dominance, but could also have implied taking over the last European colonies that lay a few miles off the US coast.

Japan had recently been brought out of the middle ages and into the 19^th century by Commodore Mathew Perry’s ships. The traumatic passage from a feudal system to capitalism was the source of contradictions that plagued later Japanese history. The Japanese elites chose to embrace modernity, and this triggered an economic revolution and a radical social shift, which somehow incorporated a constitutional monarch with divine nature. The army and navy were also modernized following European standards. The combination of prosperity and military power made the Japanese look beyond their home islands, with the intention of forming their own empire in Asia and the Pacific. This would soon trigger conflicts with Korea, China, and Russia.

In Imperial Fever Japan and the US are combined as a single player faction, for reasons that will be explained in the next instalment of design articles.

This very brief and probably insufficient introduction is intended to demonstrate that the four player factions come from very different places and represent countries with varying strengths and weaknesses when it comes to their economy, military strength, and diplomatic stance. They also have differing national goals. This historical asymmetry must be reflected in the game. The intent of this article is to clarify how the game embraces that asymmetry and explain the design decisions that lie behind it.

Inherent Asymmetry

Asymmetry is deeply ingrained in Imperial Fever. Every faction has individual strengths and weaknesses that interact with every other faction’s traits to influence the choice of game strategies.

The UK is, of course, strong at sea. It starts in control of all Naval Zones and has the largest potential fleet. It’s weak point is that it has a small army, which implies it has limited access to the prestige granted by the Expand Army military action and the final VP for Army size. Maintaining control of the oceans will be a very expensive endeavor and the UK will have to compete against all the other Powers. Ultimately the UK will probably maintain naval supremacy only by striking a deal with France and Japan, but this means these powers will also have access to the Prestige and Victory Points granted by the control of Naval Zones. Will the UK manage to keep control of the oceans by itself, or will it have to share this control? Also, the UK needs to keep Russia out of India and fight for dominance in China if the player wants to have a shot at winning the game. Finally, securing at least second place in the colonial race is usually essential to win the game.

France is strong at establishing colonies. With no urgent need to compete in naval dominance early in the game and no key area to keep control of, France can invest all its resources in colonial expansion. On the other hand, not having a Key Area of its own blocks access to a source of Prestige and Victory Points. France can compensate for this by trying to dominate China, but the player will have to compete with all other powers there. Naval dominance is also key to France winning the game, especially in the third Era, so an alliance with the UK is very much in France’s interest, because it will allow them to share Prestige and Victory Points for controlling Naval zones. Convincing the UK player that this alliance is in their mutual interest and that they should both invest in improving diplomatic relations is a matter of negotiating, but the Central Empires will have it much easier if France and the UK do not coordinate their naval policies. Diplomacy is also important because the alliances with Russia and the UK grant Prestige and also put pressure on the Central Empires, who will want to bag the Victory Points awarded by the Agenda card Hegemony in Europe to the Coalition with the largest combined army at the end of the game. France also has a decent army to build, which gives access to a large potential pool of Prestige and virtually ensures them the Victory Points at the end of the game for having the second largest army.

The Central Empires have the strongest army in the game. Expanding the Central Empires’ army to its full size grants access to a large pool of Prestige and Victory Points. Nobody can contest this, so the Central Empires need to capitalize on both if they want to win the game. The Central Empires player also has a large resource pool that represents the rapidly growing demography of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Central Empires come late to the colonial race, are not as well equipped as France to establish Colonies, and need to invest valuable Empire points to ensure control of the Balkans Key Area. The Central Empires are also the most direct competitors of the UK when it comes to Naval Dominance: the addition of the Italian and Turkish fleets makes it costly for the UK to control the Mediterranean, whereas in the North Sea only the Central Empires and the UK can build squadrons. The race in the seas surrounding Europe tends to be brutal, especially in the Third Era, when the UK and the Central Powers may acquire Strategy cards that will allow them to build Naval Squadrons for free. The other weakness of the Central Empires is Bellicism, as most of the actions that the Central Empires are best at increase their Bellicism. Usually a time comes when the Central Empires player must start to be careful with increasing their Army and expanding their Fleet, because if the Central Empires’ Bellicism value reaches 20 points then the game ends immediately and the Central Empires are hit with a -4 Victory Point penalty.

Any player choosing the Emergent Powers faction should be aware that they probably have the least interactive gameplay of all four factions. The Emergent Powers are not competing all over the map, but only in specific places, some of which are exclusive to them, such as the America and Korea Key Areas. The weak point of the Emergent Powers is, of course, that they have very limited access to Colonies. It is difficult for the Emergent Powers, which usually come late in Turn Order, to get hold of Pacific colonies, the only ones they have access to. However, if the other Powers are deep into their various disputes, the Emergent Powers may have a chance to grab two Colonies, possibly even three, making it possible to scrape some VP for Colonies. At any rate, not being hard pressed to invest in Colonies leaves the Emergent Powers with free Empire actions to ensure control of Korea and America and invest in China. The lack of Prestige from Colonies is replaced in the case of the Emergent Powers with two Key Areas and three different wars (each other player only has one war to win). The Emergent Powers need to plan ahead and build powerful fleets for the USA and Japan, since all three wars require naval combat. The Emergent Powers should not neglect their armies either, since there is a large potential pool for Prestige there and a chance to compete for second place in army size if France is too focused on Colonies.

Initial Asymmetry

Imperial Fever is a deckbuilding game. Players start with an initial deck of eight cards and can buy more powerful cards as the game progresses. As new cards are acquired, the players’ choices are constrained, since bigger decks will make recycling cards slower. The players’ initial decks are rather similar, but not entirely so. Each player has two cards of each type: two Strategy cards, two Empire cards, two Economy cards and two Military cards. All but one of the initial cards in a player’s hand are 1-value. Each player has a single 2-value card of a different type:

• The UK has the most versatile initial hand, since they start with one 2-value Strategy card. This also helps protect the UK’s first place in Turn order.
• France starts with one 2-value Empire card, which will make it easier to open colonies and invest in Diplomacy, both of which are central to any French strategy.
• The Central Empires’ initial hand has one 2-value Military card, which will help expand their Army faster, if they decide to do that.
• The Emergent Powers start with one 2-value Economy card, which represents the dynamic economy and rapid industrial development of the US and Japan. This card should help them build powerful fleets and will make it easier to buy Action cards from the Offer display.

These are subtle differences, but they play into each faction’s strengths. Additionally, as the game progresses, players will be able to acquire Strategy cards exclusive to each faction that will give them the versatility to pursue their strategy of choice.

Turn Order may be important when a particularly tempting card is in the Offer display at the beginning of the turn, and it is determined by the card played during the Initiative Phase. Any ties are solved using the default Turn Order, which is the UK, France, the Central Empires, and then the Emergent Powers. This asymmetric default Turn Order represents the initial global projection of the playing powers, from strongest to weakest. The default Turn Order will probably change little in the initial turns, but as players acquire more powerful cards, turn order may vary significantly from the default sequence.

Finally, the UK and France start with two open Colonies each, and Japan starts with one open Colony. This gives the UK and France an edge in the colonial race, but their players should not take too long to close those open Colonies, since it is cheaper to place a cube in an open Colony than opening a new one. This is particularly true of the UK, whose starting open Colonies, Egypt and The Cape/Natal, are very tempting from an economic and strategic point of view.

Asymmetric Policies

Each player has two exclusive Policy tiles on their player Board. Policy tiles have two sides, each with a different effect, and they can be flipped by playing a specific Strategy card in the Initiative phase.

For the UK, the first Policy tile allows the player to choose between a Liberal Government (the initial state), which refreshes resources every turn, and a Conservative government, which makes building Squadrons cheaper. The second Policy Tile starts as No effect, but it can be flipped to the UK-Japan Treaty during the second Era, which allows Japan and the UK to combine their fleets for control of the Pacific Naval Zone. This should liberate British squadrons to control other Naval Zones, but Japan will be awarded Prestige for this treaty, reflecting its status as a major Power in the Pacific.

France’s first Policy tile allows the player to refresh one Resource cube every turn, at the cost of more expensive diplomacy with the UK. This represents France’s protectionist colonial policies. The player may flip it to its Free Trade side, which cancels both the benefit and the penalty of Protectionism. The second French tile allows the player to choose between reducing the cost of opening new Colonies and making them easier to subjugate.

The Central Empires have one tile that allows a choice between a militaristic policy, which will reduce the high cost of expanding the Army, and an imperialist one, which will allow Germany to open colonies at a lower cost. When to switch from one to the other is entirely up to the player and their strategy: if they do it too early, expanding the Army will compete with subjugating colonies. If they do it too late, it may be impossible to catch up with France or even the UK in the colonial race. The other tile represents the growth of the German economy and will allow the player to refresh a Resource cube every turn once the matching Strategy card has been played during the Initiative phase.

For the Emergent Powers, both Policy tiles refer to Japan. The first Policy tile allows the player to choose between Tradition (the initial state), which reduces the cost of reducing unrest, and a more open policy, which allow the player to refresh a Resource cube every turn. This is done by playing the Emergent Powers’ Strategy card that comes up in Era 1. The second Policy Tile starts as No effect, but it can be flipped to Shimose Powder during Era 2, which gives Japan a very important advantage in naval combat when resolving wars. Given that Japan has two wars to win, each involving naval combat, controlling the sea is a key element to success.

Policy tiles reflect the evolution of the playing Powers and allow players to guide their strategies in different directions and adapt their play style to the current game state. Switching from one side to the other can really help at certain points in the game and players should not underestimate the advantages of adjusting their policies to their goals and strategies.

Asymmetric Events

The Event deck has forty Event cards, fewer than half of which are played in any single game. There are three types of Event cards: Headlines, which affect the game immediately; Crises, which force one player to do something and will apply a penalty to that player until their requirements are fulfilled; and Dilemmas, which force players to immediately choose between two options, often neither of which are good. Event cards may affect all players or specify a player to be affected.

Events affect players in different ways. For the UK, having a vast empire is a drain on resources and the Event deck includes several cards representing colonial conflicts that will cost precious Action Points or Resources to quench. Adverse UK events may also reflect political crises at home.

For France, the Event deck contains several cards that increase France’s National Unrest, which reflects the political instability during the Third Republic. The France player will have to keep an eye on their National Unrest, because it may easily get out of hand if left unattended.

Most of the Event cards that affect the Central Empires tend to increase their Bellicism. Bellicism is one of the Central Empires’ main weaknesses. The actions that come easier to them, expanding the Army and Fleet, increase Bellicism, so the player must be very careful when they are close to the 20 point Bellicism limit that penalizes their final VP score and immediately ends the game.

Finally, the Events that affect the Emergent Powers tend to reflect the tensions of two countries undergoing rapid development. On top of that, Japan must face the contradictions of a very traditional society meeting modernity.

Conclusion

Asymmetry is a key feature of Imperial Fever that runs through all its systems, bringing them together in complex but coherent ways. Asymmetry also fosters replayability, and players tend to come out of their first game with alternative strategies that they want to try in their next game. Since each faction plays very differently, players can also try out each power in succession and have a very different experience.

The downside of asymmetry is balance. It is easier to make a balanced game when all players start in an equivalent position and have the same alternatives. So far playtesting has shown that, even though every side plays differently, all players can win and, given players with similar experience, the end scores are not too far apart. The next article will concentrate on the influence of non-player Powers in the game, focusing on the crucial role of Russia.

---

Previous Article: Imperial Fever: Deckbuilding With a Twist