Sort of, if Paradox games were 95% less complex.

Imperialism is an interesting game. Sure it's like Paradox TBS games, but then again it isn't. In Imperialism, the systems and mechanics are very simple, but you still need to understand and make use of all of them equally if you want to succeed.

I'm a big fan of Victoria. And in my opinion Vic was inspired by Imperialism. Especially in areas like production and land improvement. Of course politics in Victoria is much more complex and there is no social management in Imperialism.

From what I've played of this and Victoria 1, the focus is very different. Victoria, at its core, is a political/social engineering sim that has an Imperialism-like economic model going on, however I found that it was sort of fiddly to actually do anything too directly with it. And Revolutions further distanced you from it.

Imperialism is ENTIRELY about managing and manipulating the economy, on an international scale. It's a much narrower focus than Vicky but I think the narrow focus allows it to handle that particular area better.

I think that what Imperialism, both one and two, got right, was to make a very complex subject suitable for an enjoyable game. The paradox games suffer from the need for players to keep track of everything that's happening. Sort of a Baldur's gate where you have to keep all the dice-rolls in the entire game in your head all the time to understand what to do next.

The imperialisms use a very simplified model of the world so games are kept short. For the money Victoria i and ii would probably seem to give you more of a game and more hours of gametime, but IMO less actual fun and more of what I find to be less enjoyable than not playing at all.