PDA

View Full Version : Railways



Kai-Arne
16th Aug 2004, 10:35
Railways played a very big role in the french-german war 1870/71! That's why I think they should do in Imperial Glory, too!
Troops and supply-stuff could be faster transported in railways!

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 10:47
Hupp! Never thought of that one!
Wonder if that would be a good element in this game? Willmore has those good ideas about research and so on. But i think it will be a problem to build them, they would just be high priority targets by the enemy. But it´s not a bad idea in theory, to quickly reinforce patricular areas or send supplies to allies! But I think they would have mentioned it if they would put trains in the game. And railroads that already are placed on the map from the beginning and nondestructible would only cause repeating tactics, and thus less fun, i think... :(

Kai-Arne
16th Aug 2004, 10:52
I want railways!!!

Walter
16th Aug 2004, 10:58
Dont scream!:mad:
It´s not my fault if you cant use railways dude!

I am Canadian!
16th Aug 2004, 22:17
I want railways!!!

Well, my vote is cast. I think it would create an interesting twist to the game, making infantry much more mobile and ensuring that they are well rested when they reach the front. It would also increase trade and make supply routes more strategic, as they cannot quickly be rerouted.

I'm not sure if the game will be long enough for railways to be fully introduced, but its worth a try.

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 02:13
Railway development and research on the level it reached by the '50-70s didn't start until well after the Napoleonic era, and for a game that would focus on that era, it would unfortunately be unfeasable to include them.

Kai-Arne
17th Aug 2004, 13:45
I don't think the game will especially focus on napoleonic era when the timeframe is set between 1780 and 1890!

Willmore
17th Aug 2004, 15:15
And who told you that's the timeline ?

I am Canadian!
18th Aug 2004, 21:28
In the forum "Timeframe: 1780-1890" the timeframe is outlined as just that, 1780-1890, although someone who sounded official said it wouldn't be that long. I just hope it will.

Kai-Arne
19th Aug 2004, 18:21
Originally posted by I am Canadian!
In the forum "Timeframe: 1780-1890" the timeframe is outlined as just that, 1780-1890, although someone who sounded official said it wouldn't be that long. I just hope it will.

Who told that?

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 02:20
Vic Flange

I am Canadian!
20th Aug 2004, 02:31
Ya, I think that was it, he was like a moderator or something.

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 07:14
Hey .... VIC .... VIIIIIIIIIIC .... you alive ?

Can I get a whoop whoop ?

Mike_B
20th Aug 2004, 07:22
Hi all,

Just to let you know, if anyone is going to the Leipzig Convention (19th-22nd August), Imperial Glory will be there
:)


I'm guessing he's there or is preparing for it.

sick
20th Aug 2004, 10:00
Probably after Games Convention he will have another busy period with Gamestars Live. It might take some time before he shows up again.

Vic Flange
8th Sep 2004, 16:52
Yes, you're correct - I've been out and about (see my other post) and there's lots more PR stuff to come. We've had great feedback on the game and I'm really pleased with how everything's going.

The timeframe is 1789-1830.

Czar
8th Sep 2004, 16:57
Hello!

Nice to see a developer!

You mention a tech tree... 1789-1830? What sort of techs here?

Willmore
9th Sep 2004, 02:07
Finally a timeline, and the one I wanted ... YAY !!!

Arctic_Wolf
12th Sep 2004, 19:59
Hmm, if the timeframe is 1789-1830 am I therefore right in thinking that turn gaps have also been changed, i.e each turn represents a month/season instead of a year?

Champagne
16th Sep 2004, 01:26
Turns shuold be in months IMO, it never took any one a year to travel 100 miles to defend their women and children. Having 12 turns per year, would make the single player campaigns last both longer, and better. Allowing for more accomplishments. A ten year war would give you about 120 turns to build armies, invade, defend, build fortifications, fight naval battles, etc.

As far as that goes, I think railways will be mere useless now that it is official that the timeline ends at 1830.

Vic Flange
17th Sep 2004, 12:01
Turn-length is not yet set (currently balancing).

Techs are split into various military, political, commercial and resource-based advancements. Within these you can expect to see things like new units and military tactics, government systems, various ways of developing trade routes, better exploitation of resources etc. We may publish some of the Tech Tree on the website at a later date - still TBD.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 12:33
A month being a standard movement time would be pretty realistic. With about 2 or 3 months being the standard time of training units. As military training from recruitment to service is usualy a matter of 10-15-25 weeks.

Taking about 2 years like in the Total War series is stupid IMO. You sign up for four years and it takes 4 just to train you? lol.

AcceptGrits
17th Sep 2004, 14:56
In MTW, they did 1 turn a year to cover the nearly 400 year scope of the game. :eek:

One of the main reasons why the game was ruined (every turn you get so much money off trade, agriculture, taxes and ransom). I just attack non-stop because there's really no reason to stop.

BlackCoat
21st Dec 2004, 15:12
Originally posted by Vic Flange
Turn-length is not yet set (currently balancing).

Techs are split into various military, political, commercial and resource-based advancements. Within these you can expect to see things like new units and military tactics, government systems, various ways of developing trade routes, better exploitation of resources etc. We may publish some of the Tech Tree on the website at a later date - still TBD.

Any limitations here by the empire chosen?
One surely could get that impression from a recent interview...

Same for politics.
Ie some limitations as to who can be at war/peace etc with some specific else. -tell me it aint so :o