/pic840712.jpg)
Imperial Deep Dive
What the Community Thinks About Imperial
Reviewers who cover Imperial tend to split along one line: does it bother you that a nation's fate is decided by whoever currently holds the most bonds in it, or does that shifting control feel like the whole point? Board Game Dad holds the game up as an example of a stock buying mechanic done well, pairing it with East India Companies as two games built around the same idea of profiting from performance a player does not directly control. BoardGameBollocks ranks Imperial at number forty-two in its top 100 board games of all time, calling it one of the designer's most original games. The Dice Tower takes the opposite position: asked on air about covering more of the same designer's catalog, the reply was blunt, Imperial was dismissed as a game where a turn can pass with nothing for the player to actually do, since the nations themselves are being steered by other investors.
That disagreement traces back to the same design choice. The countries in Imperial act, wage war, and expand, but the player who currently controls the most bonds in a country decides what it does. For Board Game Dad and BoardGameBollocks that indirection is the appeal. For The Dice Tower it removes agency from the table.
Core Mechanics That Define Imperial
Buying Bonds to Control a Nation
Board Game Dad frames Imperial around a stock buying mechanic: players are not running a country directly, they are buying stock in it. Whoever holds the most stock in a given nation is the one who controls it, and because players keep buying and trading, that control keeps shifting over the course of the game. The goal is not to run the best country. It is to end the game holding the most money, which comes from investing in whichever country or player is performing best, even if that country is not the one a given player has poured the most into personally.
Investing in War and Industrial Expansion
BoardGameBollocks describes the same system from the investor's chair: players take on the role of international investors who put money into countries to bolster their war machines, then hold influence in those countries. From there the goal is to encourage the nations to engage in warfare and industrial expansion, since that expansion is what turns an investment into profit. It is, in BoardGameBollocks' words, a semi complicated game, because that profit only shows up once a nation's factories, fleets, and armies actually do something with the influence a player has bought.
The Imperial Experience
Two Levels of Strategy at Once
Board Game Dad singles out the layered feeling this creates: a player can be the worst performing investor in the room and still come out ahead, because the skill being tested is not how well any one country is run, it is how well a player reads which country or player to back. There are, as Board Game Dad puts it, two levels of game going on at once, a nation's own fortunes on one layer and reading the table on the other.
No Turn of Your Own
Board Game Dad ties that layered feeling to a simple rule: control of a country always shifts to whoever currently holds the most stock in it. The Dice Tower experienced that same distance from the action less favorably, saying a player can literally have no turn because they do not control anything themselves.
What Makes Imperial Stand Out
A Top 100 Pick
BoardGameBollocks places Imperial at number 42 in its run-through of its top 100 board games of all time, a list the channel describes as games it has played or owned and considers fantastic.
Rondel-Driven Turns
BoardGameBollocks says Imperial utilizes a rondel, and calls it one of the designer's best and most original games. The Dice Tower names that designer directly, Mac Gerdts, whose catalog also includes Imperial 2030 and Seven Empires.
Potential Drawbacks
Little Sense of Direct Control
The strongest criticism on record comes from The Dice Tower, who found the entire premise unappealing: a game where a player can have no real turn because they do not control the pieces that are actually moving. For a viewer expecting a normal turn structure, watching bond holders steer nations from a distance can read as a lack of agency rather than a layer of strategy.
A Semi Complicated Setup
BoardGameBollocks calls Imperial a semi complicated game, since a player's profit only shows up once the nation they have bought into can actually be pushed toward the warfare and industrial expansion that pays out.
If You Enjoy Imperial
Board Game Dad pairs Imperial with East India Companies as the other stock buying game worth playing, noting that both hinge on profiting from performance a player does not fully control, even if Imperial ties that profit to nations at war rather than shipping companies chasing trade goods.
What Reviewers Are Saying
"I love games that have a stock buying mechanic, so the two games I'm thinking of are Imperial and East India Companies. Both of these games have a very similar thing going on, where the objective is to have the most money at the end of the game, and the way you get the most money is by buying stock in the players, and what I mean by players is that in Imperial there are different countries that are trying to get dominance in this map of Europe, and in East India Companies there are different shipping companies that are trying to make the most profit."
— Board Game Dad
"Also, I don't like Imperial at all. There's my review of it. I don't like a game where you can literally have no turn because you don't control stuff. I just didn't find it to be interesting."
— The Dice Tower
"These international investors that will be investing in countries in order to bolster their war machine in a sense, and then you'll be holding influence in these countries. So I'm trying to encourage them to engage in warfare and industrial expansion, so you can maximize the profits of your investments."
— BoardGameBollocks