PDA

View Full Version : Timeframe: 1780-1890



Kai-Arne
25th Jul 2004, 18:46
I've just read an preview of the E3 on the IP-fanpage. There it was said: "The game's timeframe isn't definitively set, but seems to progress from from the 1780's to approximately 1890..."
I think that period is to long! I would like to have 1780 to 1820 or so!

Willmore
25th Jul 2004, 19:52
WOW !

That is deffinetely too long, I always figured it would be 1780 - 1820/30

Kai-Arne
26th Jul 2004, 10:17
Don`t worry! I know that from cossacks2. At the beginning of development, GSC wanted to make a timeframe of 16 th - 19 th century! A half year later they pretendet to include the whole 19 th century, especially napoleonic time! Shortly after they decided to make a pure napoleonic-wars-game!
That's how it will be with this game, too! I guess we'll have 1789-1820 soon! I#m not interested in Pickelhauben-wearing soldiers! ;)

Arctic_Wolf
26th Jul 2004, 21:01
I don't think its too long, especially since the strategic part is turn-based. As with most Turn-based games this will probably end up with 1 Turn equaling 1 Year, 30-40 turns seems a bit light to me.

So unless they split it down into seasons, or even months, then we probably will see 1780-1890.


Personally I hope they do split it down into months, on Medieval Total war, no matter how big or small the province was, it was always one turn(a year) to cross it, which was unrealistic, not just on a geographical factor, but a time scale and historical factor;

Harald Godwineson marched his Army from Stamford Bridge in the North of England to Hastings, near the South Coast, in a day. On M:TW it takes two or three years. And on medieval total war, say you were traversing the province of Khaza(East of the Black Sea), about the same length it takes just the one year.

So I also hope Pyro can come up with some realistic system to counter this kind of thing

Kai-Arne
27th Jul 2004, 10:52
I had the chance to think about the timeframe-stuff, and came to the same result as Arctic_Wolfe! Only 30 years (e.g 1790-1820) would really pass to fast and I would prefere 1 month instead of 1 year passing after a round as well! But it's important that the game remains authentically in the points: weapons, uniforms and tactics! Okay, the tactics didn't change very much from napoleonic wars, but a bit. But uniforms really have to change often during the timeframe between 1780-1890, hopefully that will be managable for the game. And I think it should be happen authomatically! The weapons, as we know, will be improvable by the player. Here it's important, that every improvement is only available from a special, correct time on! For example ignition-needle-lock-rifles (hopefully the right term, in german:Z√ľndnadelschloss-gewehre; were used during the prussian-french war in 1870/71) in napoleonic wars, that would be completely wrong and terrible!
If Pyro can solve these upcoming problems, I would like to have such a timeframe, but I'd like to start a bit later, maybe in 1796. Perhaps it will be possible to choose that self!

PS: Okay okay. I AM interested in "Pickelhauben"-wearing soldiers! :))

Vic Flange
27th Jul 2004, 14:29
The timeframe still isn't set in stone, but we won't be going as far as 1890. And we're still balancing the turn-length to get the playthrough time and general pacing correct.

Graf von Dracula
30th Jul 2004, 10:44
Let's view which important conflicts conflicts shall be covered between 1780 to 1890 (and the major powers available in the game involved on it):

Napoleonic Wars: The main conflict of the game and the one most of us are interested about, and where all our major powers are involved. 1792 to 1815 is the period where all of the screenshots of the game are placed. Cool.

War of Crimea: British, French and Turks (where they a major power or is Egypt?) vs Russia. Would be interesting to replay the charge of the light brigade.

American Civil War: North vs South.... it could be an interesting addition, but surely too costly in terms of space/time.

Austro-Prussian war: Austria vs Prussia. Should be covered in a process of reunification of Germany (1866)

War of 1870: France vs Prussia, another interesting one...

Do you think it all can be covered with realism? Tactics didn't change too much (actually, just technology as the needle rifle mentioned by KAi-Arne or the Krupp bottom-breach howitzer) but the uniformilogy would be changing (the French _Napoleonic uniform shoul be living together with the 2nd Empire red trouser(culot rouge). Do you think it would be possible?

Willmore
31st Jul 2004, 00:46
I doubt it will go that far, besides, if that start date is set, then nothing will be the same, so whatt the point ?

Johnny_H
2nd Aug 2004, 01:04
On a Smaller Note it would be INCREDIBLE to do the Zulu war of 1879. just a thought the movie ZULU just holds soo soo much stock with me to not wana play Rorkes Drift or try to actually win Islandwana.

Willmore
2nd Aug 2004, 01:24
I disagree, the Zulu war in military standards was nothing but a slaughter, if it were in the game, it would be the easiest campaign in history of War Games !

If anything, I would prefer the Crimean war, as a separate campaign, or an add-on, as I would prefer the Napoleonic era get as much attention as possible.

Johnny_H
2nd Aug 2004, 02:33
Holding a small mission station with just under 100 fit for duty troops? against 4thousend zulus? easy? Or the bad positioning of the British Forces at Islandwana with thier backs to a mountain with no room for withdrawl against a Disciplined force of 20,000 Zulus with only 1200 troops from a regiment split in two??
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/JohnnyH/topograph.jpg

I Dont know if that would be easy man
later in the war it was a slaughter as you put it but just playing those two battles alone would be alot of fun.

just my opinion and I agree 100% on the prospect of a Crimean war mod though.

Willmore
2nd Aug 2004, 03:23
My point is, that the position they got themselves into was because of command decisions, since YOU will be in command, chances are you won't make the stupid decisions.

Zulu warriors might have been brave, but against british volley fire, they have nothing, so if you were to implement a zulu campaign in a game, and input all the parameters, in the end, the unavoidable outcome would be an overwhelming british vistory.

Schwartz
6th Aug 2004, 22:35
Not a bad idea, though. So long as they can pull it off, we might have Boar war, the boxer rebellion, the sudan campaign against the Mahdi.... Think about General Gordons defence at Khartoum... wouldn't that be great? God I hope they can pull that off!

Willmore
7th Aug 2004, 00:02
again, those are all scenarios, I doubt how something like that can be implemented in a single-player game starting in 1780.

I am Canadian!
11th Aug 2004, 01:49
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
But it's important that the game remains authentically in the points: weapons, uniforms and tactics! Okay, the tactics didn't change very much from napoleonic wars, but a bit. But uniforms really have to change often during the timeframe between 1780-1890, hopefully that will be managable for the game. And I think it should be happen authomatically! The weapons, as we know, will be improvable by the player. Here it's important, that every improvement is only available from a special, correct time on! For example ignition-needle-lock-rifles (hopefully the right term, in german:Z√ľndnadelschloss-gewehre; were used during the prussian-french war in 1870/71) in napoleonic wars, that would be completely wrong and terrible!

I disagree with a few points made in this message:

1. Tactics DID change in the 110 years between 1780 and 1890. ex, imagine a battle in the American Revolution style of opposing parallel lines firing at each other until one of them breaks but with breach-loading rifles, able to fire once every 5 seconds or so, in place of the inacurate muzzel-loading muskets, able to fire every 15 seconds in the most skilled of hands, that were used in that period. It would be a massacre for both sides, which is why tactics evolved to include trenches and other defensive measures.

2. I also disagree with the argument that advances should only be allowed from a certain time onwards because I believe that if a player wants to halt advancement on his navy and increase his development of firearms for the infantry, then that's his/her decision and they will probably beat everyone in the land battles, but will be massacred when it comes to naval conflicts. I think it should be up to the player with no limits like what this message is suggesting.

Mmm_Pies
11th Aug 2004, 08:54
2. I also disagree with the argument that advances should only be allowed from a certain time onwards because I believe that if a player wants to halt advancement on his navy and increase his development of firearms for the infantry, then that's his/her decision and they will probably beat everyone in the land battles, but will be massacred when it comes to naval conflicts. I think it should be up to the player with no limits like what this message is suggesting.

I like this idea cause it would make the games less linear and more varied.

I am Canadian!
12th Aug 2004, 01:00
Exactly!!

Kai-Arne
12th Aug 2004, 19:25
@ I am Canadian:

1. You shouldn`t take the am. Civil war as an example, because in this conflict troops still were using slow loading muzzle-loaders. Okay, they were rifled, but haven`t you ever seen the film "Gettysburg"? There are a lot of scenes in which confederal troops in line attack north-US-troops in cover!
And in the War of Crimea the tactics were very similar to the old tactics in nap. era! (British often attacked in their defensive lines, a la Wellington), and russians still used flint-lock-muzzle-loaders!
Even in 1870/71 the armies fought in formations like line and square (okay okay, they often used cover as well)
Have you forgotten, that garrisoned troops will play a major role in imperial glory? Napoleonic troops didn't garrison as much as e.g. german or french troops in 1870/71! Therefor I think they should make this huge timeframe!

It wouldn't make sence if every advance was avaidable from the beginning on! (let's say 1780) , because:
Early-19.th century-manufactures weren`t able to produce high-quality weapons like the miniee-rifle or the ignition-needle-rifle! That would be sience fiction. If you want science fiction you should wait for another game!

and

Battles would be chaotic and boring if one side is so much superior! (e.g. krupp cannons and ignition-needle-rifles vs. smooth-bore muzzle loader muskets and cannons)

You said, am. civil war-weapons could be fired every 5 sec. or so.
I say: Wrong! They still used muzzle-loaders, and still in 1870/71 soldiers coul`'t fire faster than ca. 6 shots per minute!

@Dracula: Uniforming won't be a big problem! They have to change authomatically on several key-points, different for every nation!


PS: 1780-1890, I am for!!!

I am Canadian!
12th Aug 2004, 21:23
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
Napoleonic troops didn't garrison as much as e.g. german or french troops in 1870/71! Therefor I think they should make this huge timeframe!

It wouldn't make sence if every advance was avaidable from the beginning on! (let's say 1780) , because:
Early-19.th century-manufactures weren`t able to produce high-quality weapons like the miniee-rifle or the ignition-needle-rifle! That would be sience fiction. If you want science fiction you should wait for another game!

and

Battles would be chaotic and boring if one side is so much superior! (e.g. krupp cannons and ignition-needle-rifles vs. smooth-bore muzzle loader muskets and cannons)

You said, am. civil war-weapons could be fired every 5 sec. or so.
I say: Wrong! They still used muzzle-loaders, and still in 1870/71 soldiers coul`'t fire faster than ca. 6 shots per minute!

@Dracula: Uniforming won't be a big problem! They have to change authomatically on several key-points, different for every nation!


PS: 1780-1890, I am for!!!

1. Don't hear me wrong, I also want this timeframe, but I think there shouldn't be so many limits.

2. I'm not saying every advance should be available from the beginning on. What I'm saying is that there should be a tech tree, like in Civ 3 or M:TW that allows you to advance in the areas you want to and neglect the areas you don't want, possibly allowing you to get ahead of other Empires in those areas and fall behind in other areas. You can't advance to research a tech.(Breech-Loading guns) until you have all the prerequisites(shelled ammunition, rifle-boring, etc.) and those prerequisites have prerequisites and they have prequisites and so on until you reach the beginning of the tech tree. Less restrictions equals more freedom.

Battles would be chaotic and boring if one side is so much superior! (e.g. krupp cannons and ignition-needle-rifles vs. smooth-bore muzzle loader muskets and cannons) you said.

3. With what I'm suggesting it would be more like krupp cannons and smooth-bore muskets vs. cannons and ignition-needle rifles.

You said, am. civil war-weapons could be fired every 5 sec. or so.
I say: Wrong! They still used muzzle-loaders, and still in 1870/71 soldiers coul`'t fire faster than ca. 6 shots per minute!

4. I never said that civil war-era weapons could fire at that rate, I said that by 1890, the supposed end-year of the game and 25 years after the end of the civil war, most world powers used breech-loaders as their mass infantry weapon(which could fire every 5 seconds). If you have ever paid close attention to the film "Zulu", you would know that in the year 1879 the British infantry already used breech-loading Winchester rifles(in fact, those rifles probably won the battle for them). In 1902, 12 years after the end-year of the game, the British army ordered thousands of Lee-Enfield rifles that actually had magazines, this allowed them to fire multiple shots without reloading, pushing the rate of fire to 15 rounds a minute, that's about 1 shot every 4 seconds. The Lee-Enfield also had an effective range of 3, 600 feet.

That's it for now.

Kai-Arne
14th Aug 2004, 17:56
Originally posted by I am Canadian!


Battles would be chaotic and boring if one side is so much superior! (e.g. krupp cannons and ignition-needle-rifles vs. smooth-bore muzzle loader muskets and cannons) you said.



That really sounds... stupid! Are you interested in a realistic and historical game or not?

I am Canadian!
14th Aug 2004, 18:20
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
That really sounds... stupid! Are you interested in a realistic and historical game or not?

Realistic..Yes.
Historical..Sure.
Scripted..No.

Yes, in fact, I am interested in a realistic and historical game, but not a scripted one that is completely reliant on what actually happened to drive the game. It needs to be more reliant on what the player chooses, not what Napolean or King George V chose.

Obviously, you and I have very different views of what this game should be:

I see it as an opportunity to change history and see how the player ranks up against the greatest military minds in history.

You see it as more of an interactive history lesson or as some kind of documentary of life in the 19th century.

That's how I see this argument.

Kai-Arne
16th Aug 2004, 10:24
Originally posted by I am Canadian!
Realistic..Yes.
Historical..Sure.
Scripted..No.

Yes, in fact, I am interested in a realistic and historical game, but not a scripted one that is completely reliant on what actually happened to drive the game. It needs to be more reliant on what the player chooses, not what Napolean or King George V chose.




Okay. But I'm afraid, that the AI is stupid enough to uprade nothing. Then you're land-army, lets say in 1875 or so is equipted with 'modern' chassepot-rifles and rifled breechloader-cannons while the AI-enemy still uses flint lock-muskets and muzzle loader-cannons! You're naval-army consists of steam-ships and the AI's just of old sail-fregatts! And even if the AI upgrades everything it would be stupid if that happened to early! In napoleonic time it WAS impossible to make weapons like the french chassepot-rifle or the prussian ignition-needle-rifle which were used in 1870/71!
How can you pretend that would be realistic and historical?

PS:I don't want to complezely chooseless either, but for me it would be enough to advance my weapons from a special, realistic timepoint on!

I am Canadian!
16th Aug 2004, 21:56
I'm not pretending that it would be more realistic, it WOULD!

With the tech tree I'm suggesting it would make researching a tech earlier than it actually was impossible unless you sacrificed all other areas of research, and even if you did then you still wouldn't be that far ahead of when it actually happened because of all the prerequisites that must first be researched.

I know it was impossible to make breech-loaders in the 18th century, so because you must first research the prerequisites for the technology allowing you to make breech-loaders it would take until about the time that breech-loaders were introduced in real life for them to become available in the game, understand?

If not, then I suggest playing the game Civ 3.

Also, I don't think the AI would be that stupid, and if so then I don't think this game will last long on the markets.

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 02:19
*whistle*


TIMEOUT !

That's just unfair - comparing the greatest games of all time to this game, Civilization has created a standard that is virtually impossible to surpass, so let's eliminate it from the discussion.

Kai-Arne
17th Aug 2004, 15:15
Originally posted by I am Canadian!
I'm not pretending that it would be more realistic, it WOULD!


I know it was impossible to make breech-loaders in the 18th century, so because you must first research the prerequisites for the technology allowing you to make breech-loaders it would take until about the time that breech-loaders were introduced in real life for them to become available in the game, understand?



That depends on :
1. How long a play-round is (a whole year is to much, then time would pass to fast; so we've just the options half-year, quarter-year and months)
2. How much time it takes finding a new development!
I think it should take a few years!

Czar
19th Aug 2004, 17:38
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
I've just read an preview of the E3 on the IP-fanpage. There it was said: "The game's timeframe isn't definitively set, but seems to progress from from the 1780's to approximately 1890..."
I think that period is to long! I would like to have 1780 to 1820 or so!

Well I found the link where you read that:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/imperial-glory/514642p1.html?fromint=1

But I have to say that I would be interested in an official statement on this.

Gamespy and E3 are not what I would call 'reliable sources'.

After all, Half life 2 was supposed to be released when?
(And yes I know about the supposed 'Hack' - based on promised release date it should have made little / no difference. :mad: )

Then there is Driv3r. A bugged piece of rubbish which my local EB took off the shelf because it played so badly. Wonder why so many magazines rated it as 8 or 9 / 10?:rolleyes:

The reviewer says: The game's timeframe isn't definitively set, but seems to progress from the 1780's to approximately 1890, the age of great set-piece armies and Imperial ambitions that resulted in several great empires constantly jockeying for position.

Question is - is that his guess at the dates?
Because if so we are at the mercy of someone who may (or may not) know his/her history. It's frightening how many people don't even know who won WWII any more!

I am Canadian!
20th Aug 2004, 02:25
Originally posted by Willmore
*whistle*


TIMEOUT !

That's just unfair - comparing the greatest games of all time to this game, Civilization has created a standard that is virtually impossible to surpass, so let's eliminate it from the discussion.

I'm not comparing them I'm just saying that they should use a similar style tech tree and I'm trying to explain it to Kai-Arne.

I am Canadian!
20th Aug 2004, 02:28
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
That depends on :
1. How long a play-round is (a whole year is to much, then time would pass to fast; so we've just the options half-year, quarter-year and months)
2. How much time it takes finding a new development!
I think it should take a few years!

Right, so the realism of actual dates and the correct timing depends on how well the developers time it.

Arctic_Wolf
21st Aug 2004, 22:43
Or in which direction the player wants to go, they could have the default as historic for those sissies amoung you! :D

Kai-Arne
22nd Aug 2004, 11:09
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Or in which direction the player wants to go, they could have the default as historic for those sissies amoung you! :D

Whom do you mean with 'sissies'?

Arctic_Wolf
23rd Aug 2004, 20:04
Sissy: Childish American term meaning "Cowardly" or "Girly" :D

Willmore
24th Aug 2004, 00:44
he asked Whom, not what.

Lonewulf44
24th Aug 2004, 17:25
I seen where "hostun" mentioned this, but I did'nt see anyreply or comment. I apologize if I missed it. Usually my friends and I, love more than anything to link up and play via LAN. Will there be a multiplayer campaign where you and a friend can jump in as Prussia and Britain and lay down some law on your neighbors who are controlled by the computer? Or if thats not an option (which I hope it is) can you at least start a multiplayer game and have a random map generated for you and a friend to just battle a computer without the campaign. I really hope a co-op mode gets implemented...its crazy that more games dont at least put this option in their games anymore...Grrr....
Long live Prussia

Vic Flange
8th Sep 2004, 17:09
Timeframe is 1789-1830. Campaign mode won't be multi-player due to reasons already discussed on the board (I forget where), but you will be able to have co-op battles.

Czar
8th Sep 2004, 17:13
Any chance at all that you might expand that time frame in either direction?

And if not, will it be possible for Modders to do this and expand or change the map and 'tech tree'?

(Reason: I want to crush the American War of Independence!:p )

I am Canadian!
9th Sep 2004, 00:10
Originally posted by Czar
Any chance at all that you might expand that time frame in either direction?

(Reason: I want to crush the American War of Independence!:p )

I am asking the same question.

(I also want to crush the rebels!?!)

Ragnar_NZ
9th Sep 2004, 07:46
I would like a turn to equal a season or a month, (or maybe 2 or three months?), but definately not a turn a year. This is for one reason and one reason only.

Russia in the winter!!!!!

PS Please don't ever, ever call Civ 3 the greatest game ever! It has so many things wrong with it. I can't play it, it pisses me off so much. Solitaire is better. I don't want to go ito it here, perhaps another forum if you want to argue. You're welcome to like the game, but to claim it's the greatest game ever, beyond compare? That's just discrediting this and many, many other decent titles. Its saying they are all worse, and I find that very hard to believe.

Willmore
9th Sep 2004, 14:36
I never said civ3, now did I ?

I meant the original ones. Civ 3 was good in advancing the concept of the original ones, but failed in a few areas.

I remember playing the original Civilization for months at a time, spending the every waking moment of my summer.

Czar
9th Sep 2004, 14:46
Originally posted by Willmore
...

I remember playing the original Civilization for months at a time, spending the every waking moment of my summer.

Hey! I STILL play the original Civ - mainly because that's all the work computers can handle...
*Mumbles*:(