PDA

View Full Version : Grand Strategic Warfare and an Expanded Time Period.



Czar
18th Aug 2004, 14:47
Hi,
I'm new but have been a lurker. I am not new to forums so don't hold back on responses.
I can take it! I think?!! :rolleyes:


Imperial Glory
An argument for Grand Strategic Warfare and an Expanded Time Period.


I am a War Gamer, a Strategist and probably one of the 5-10% of the customers who will consider buying this game. Strategy games attract only a certain type of player in general (‘thinkers’) and whether we like it or not we are a minority group in the computer games customer pool. The problem with thinkers is we tend to be demanding. We want accuracy, we want realism and we want the ability to make a difference.

Now I realise that this is NOT “Total War”, but comparisons to the Total War games are valid. Why? Well for one you are aiming at the same market (the thinkers). The reason Total War works is because you can make a real difference. Total War is also the benchmark at present in the same way that ‘Doom’ was a benchmark for FPS and ‘Elite’ was a benchmark for Space combat sims. All that remains to be seen is if Imperial Glory can become the new benchmark for this era of war gaming.

I have followed the development of this game with interest and I have some definite concerns. However, as I do not like to criticize unjustly, I also have some suggestions.

From the FAQ
How many missions will there be?
The game will feature over 50 maps, divided throughout England, Russia and Morocco, across 55 provinces and 29 maritime regions.

50 Maps. Sounds a lot – but for your target audience (the thinkers) – not really. The people who will buy this game will rapidly get bored with only 50 maps. Medieval Total War had a couple of Hundred and after fighting on most more than once I started to get a bit bored. How about the rest of you? The only way to make 50 maps work for your target market is if they are all totally historic (and totally complete) battlegrounds.

Is the game historically accurate?
Real history buffs will be thrilled by the historically accurate units and weaponry.
Pyro Studios accurately reproduced the square marching formations and colourful clothing of the era - everything from tassels on swords to the black furry hats of charging Russians. Empires will also behave differently, so fighting a battle against the British may be very different to fighting the French.


Sounds good. But is this really where you want to devote your energy?
Already people on this forum are saying “Is that the correct firearm?”, “Did that Regiment really wear that headdress?”.
Real History Buffs will just demand more and more and are almost impossible to please. If you go down that road then you have to be prepared to deliver – right down to the Regimental Patches – and don’t be surprised when someone produces an obscure piece of memorabilia and bags the whole game because it is “not accurate because there was a bullet hole in the regimental banner which was never repaired” or “it is well known (from Regimental Histories stored under lock and key in the Regimental Library) that the Commander of that Regiment was distinguished by the Ostrich Feather he wore in his hat. This is not shown in the game – you idiots!”…
Gamers want to play a game. I will pass on the tassels if it means I can have more units in the game. Tassels are nice – but they are just graphics thieves.

The game is set in the early 19th century, will it be based on the Napoleonic era?
Pyro Studios is mostly concentrating around the Napoleonic era and just before/after this period, but the game is by no means just about Napoleon and his campaigns. It's rather a general setting, where actual historical events will occur but at the same time the user is free to play the game in whichever manner he/she chooses. A full list on unique historic regiments will be released at a later date.


Sorry, but looking at the screenshots I have to say it screams Napoleon!

Again I quote this:
The game will feature over 50 maps, divided throughout England, Russia and Morocco, across 55 provinces and 29 maritime regions.

European only + 1780s(?) to 1820(?) = Napoleon.

This being the case I would suggest that you do away with the Strategic Element altogether. Make the game along the lines of “Kessen” (PS2) where the player manages the battle but the course of the war is scripted. Why? Because if you are aiming at the ‘History Buffs’ this is the only way to run a historical game. It will also allow you to focus your energy on the battles and the graphics within those battles.

If you want to move away from this and allow strategic choice then you should accept that the game will be ahistoric and forget the ‘History Buffs’. You have to expand you map and your time period. True that is more work – but as I will explain below – it also expands your market.

What Empires can the player choose of?
You can play as one of the five great Empires of this period: Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia or Austro-Hungary. Each Empire has it’s own strengths, weaknesses and units such as Hussars, Lancers, Dragoons, Imperial Guards and many more.


Again that’s nice, but who is the target audience? Those bloody demanding thinkers! They will want to play any force from the period – and they are smart enough to know who was available.
Already I see “Where are the Spanish, the Swedish and the Ottomans?” After all, you cannot market to ‘Real History Buffs’ and then not include all the forces that would have been available.
No Americans? That will limit appeal and market as well. How to include Americans? The American Revolution (more on this below).


What is the maximum of units one can expect during battle?
Pyro Studios hasn't gone for 'enormous' battles in this game, rather around 2.000 units simultaneously on-screen. The approach Pyro Studios is taking is to simulate more realistic battles, with great graphical variety between units; a large animation set; detailed, interactive maps and a fairly complex AI system. Basically, Pyro Studios wanted to avoid rows of near identical looking 'toy soldiers' all behaving in more or less the same way.


Small Unit Actions? Great! I can think of a number of places where that would work. (see below)
But part of the appeal for me is those huge battles. If I cannot fight Valmy, Austerlitz, Salamanca, Waterloo, Cape St Vincent and Trafalgar I will not be buying this game – no matter how pretty it looks. I will wait for the next try at this where I CAN fight those battles. True – it may not be quite as graphically polished – but I want to play a war game, not watch a movie.

** So soldiers can move independently?
Yes, Pyro Studios is working hard on the realism of battles. They’re aiming to incorporate as many animations as possible, they want to avoid that people attack in the same way over and over again and that people are just standing around doing nothing when they could be attacking the enemy. Soldiers will fire and reload slightly differently; have a variety of idle animations; enter buildings and take up defensive positions individually; charge the enemy with differing animations and at slightly different speeds etc. They don't simply move in straight lines.


This is all fantastic, but will it keep me coming back for more? Not if I don’t have any choices it won’t. Already I see comments in this forum about soldiers “firing through each other”. I can overlook a few graphical flaws if the game is interesting. The soldiers in MTW were very basic – but I never really noticed because I was too busy winning (and losing) battles which in turn were winning (and losing) me a war.
If the basic Game engine is no good or if there are insufficient strategic and tactical choices then ‘eye candy’ will not make me happy. I want to be able to be able to make a difference - that will keep me coming back for more.

So what do I want?
A game covering a very interesting era with a lot of choices.
A look at the screenshots really excites me. Strategic and Tactical Warfare in the Age of Muskets! Maritime warfare as well!
So what wars would I like to fight and what would I like to be able to do?
Fight some of the Colonial Actions and Wars in North America and Caribbean:
Louisbourg (1745); “The Fortress itself had cost 1-2 percent of the Annual Budget of the French Ministry of the Marine between 1716 and 1740.”
The fall of French Canada 1758-1760, where the tactics were similar to European warfare but the numbers were smaller. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the French had won. Would this have led to an American + English Alliance in the American War of Independence?
Havana (1762) and Naval & Marine actions across the Caribbean.
The American War of Independence (1775-83): What if the British had won?
The Far East:
India? Dutch East Indies?
Battle of Plassey (1757)

It is also worth noting that Britain and the American Colonies again went to war in 1812 and several small but Historic Naval actions were fought (USS Chesapeake v. HMS Shannon comes to mind without using any reference texts – and I’m no expert)
A few seconds on Google reveals the USS Hornet v. HMS Peacock, 1813.

As for Sweden? Naval battle at Svensksund v Russia (1790) no minor power there. Real History Buffs will know this too and it will affect Russia’s ability to develop as a Naval Power in the game. You miss this out and they will cane you for it.

I want to be able to fight Marine + Shore Actions too – with Naval support.
The Battle of Bunker Hill (1775). Does the game engine allow me to do this? It should.

So what is needed?
An expansion of the time frame from Early – Mid 1700s (as far back as the Battle of Blenheim (1704) perhaps?) to perhaps as far as Crimean War (1853-56). Although the Prussians introduced Dreyse Needle Guns in 1840s, so maybe stop in 1820s or 30s?
Expand the Map to include Americas and East Indies as far as Australia.
If you want to limit the game to Europe (for ease of use) then make this a scenario within the broader game.
The only other option is to eliminate strategic choice altogether. The current option is the ‘middle ground’ and it will leave no one satisfied.


What is the pay off for this?
A vastly expanded market – including a lot more appeal for Americans. What that means is a lot more revenue (I bet that got your attention!).
A game with more appeal to target market – with the potential to become a ‘classic’, not just a diversion that hinted at what could have been done.

Sources:
Tactical Genius in Battle – Simon Goodenough
The World Atlas of Warfare – Richard Holmes
Famous Land Battles – Richard Humble
Warfare in the Eighteenth Century – Jeremy Black
The Times History of War
Strategy – B.H. Liddell Hart
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/5815.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/war1812/atsea/hnt-peck.htm
http://www.abc.se/~m10354/mar/russ1790.htm

Kai-Arne
18th Aug 2004, 15:40
Hmmm, there are a lot of true arguments in your post!
But you should forget the 18.th century! I've read, too that the game will start shortly before the napoleonic wars and end shortly after, but that is wrong! On the E3 2004 it was said the timeframe isn't definetely set, but will progess from the 1780's to approximately 1890! An almost full 19.th century game! And that is good! Because if they would make a timeframe, let's say between 1750 and 1820, the player couldn't make that important and big developments in weaponry, like in the 19.th century!
Have you ever heard of cossacks2-napoleonic wars? (I think you did!) There you can fight historical battles with more than 64.000 units! (I know, even that number is to small for Austerlitz, Leipzig, Waterloo and so on)
You said there are to few nations! Of course, if there are only 5 nations not every player will be able to lead 'his own nation'! But for me it's more important to have authentic and different nations! (In medieval, nations were very similar to each other!) And there will be spain, portugal,
italy,sweden,danmark,netherlands... included in the game, but as non-playable nations, but I suppose they won't differ that much from each other as the 5 main nations.
Are you american? Sorry, but I'm quite happy that there won't be american conflicts in the game! I don't like the am. civil war, and if Pyro decided to make a european-19.th century game, you must accept that!

Czar
18th Aug 2004, 17:31
Fair Point.

And the time frame makes a big difference.

So battle of Sedan and Austro-Prussian War. So railways become important.

I agree - no US Civil War. That has been done to death.
Oh BTW - I'm in Australia. Of British / Prussian decent.

Yes, I know I have no real influence on the game but I would like a game not covered properly by others. Also this era (19th C) has been covered by Paradox in "Victoria".

Personally I don't care too much for huge tech advances. The sides could rapidly become unbalanced. There were some big changes in the 19th Century leading up to the development of the Machine Gun. (Smokeless Powder in 1885). A bit quicker with research and you might get to machine guns sooner and the game is effectively over.

Willmore
18th Aug 2004, 18:44
Regarding timeframes, and real battles, here's the thing:

Since the game is one continuous campaign going from time A to time B, then starting at point A+1second, everything in the game will be different, or should be different compared to real history.

As such, talk of real battles, real wars, real anything is useless.


As such, what should be focused on, is gameplay, including what I would prefer - the strategic(map) mode, with diplomacy, economy, and the major strategic decisions of force allocation.




I feel that this will be more of a Paradox Games type of game, where you're thrown into a time period, and you relive it, but everything you do changes it, as nothing can be the same.

Arctic_Wolf
18th Aug 2004, 22:15
Originally posted by Czar

I would suggest that you do away with the Strategic Element altogether. Make the game along the lines of “Kessen” (PS2) where the player manages the battle but the course of the war is scripted. Why? Because if you are aiming at the ‘History Buffs’ this is the only way to run a historical game.

...

This is all fantastic, but will it keep me coming back for more? Not if I don’t have any choices it won’t. Already I see comments in this forum about soldiers “firing through each other”. I can overlook a few graphical flaws if the game is interesting. I want to be able to be able to make a difference - that will keep me coming back for more.

Erm, you want the game to be totally historicly accurate by taking away the non-linear aspects but then you say that without choice you won't like the game? :confused:

I am Canadian!
18th Aug 2004, 22:40
Just some thoughts. -My Comments will have these markings around them-


Originally posted by Czar


Imperial Glory
An argument for Grand Strategic Warfare and an Expanded Time Period.


I am a War Gamer, a Strategist and probably one of the 5-10% of the customers who will consider buying this game. Strategy games attract only a certain type of player in general (‘thinkers’) and whether we like it or not we are a minority group in the computer games customer pool. The problem with thinkers is we tend to be demanding. We want accuracy, we want realism and we want the ability to make a difference.

-I agree.-

From the FAQ
How many missions will there be?
The game will feature over 50 maps, divided throughout England, Russia and Morocco, across 55 provinces and 29 maritime regions.

50 Maps. Sounds a lot – but for your target audience (the thinkers) – not really. The people who will buy this game will rapidly get bored with only 50 maps. Medieval Total War had a couple of Hundred and after fighting on most more than once I started to get a bit bored. How about the rest of you? The only way to make 50 maps work for your target market is if they are all totally historic (and totally complete) battlegrounds.

-Are you kidding? That's more than enough maps to keep the average player occupied until they come out with an expansion(as I'm hoping they will).-

Is the game historically accurate?
Real history buffs will be thrilled by the historically accurate units and weaponry.
Pyro Studios accurately reproduced the square marching formations and colourful clothing of the era - everything from tassels on swords to the black furry hats of charging Russians. Empires will also behave differently, so fighting a battle against the British may be very different to fighting the French.

Sounds good. But is this really where you want to devote your energy?
Already people on this forum are saying “Is that the correct firearm?”, “Did that Regiment really wear that headdress?”.
Real History Buffs will just demand more and more and are almost impossible to please. If you go down that road then you have to be prepared to deliver – right down to the Regimental Patches – and don’t be surprised when someone produces an obscure piece of memorabilia and bags the whole game because it is “not accurate because there was a bullet hole in the regimental banner which was never repaired” or “it is well known (from Regimental Histories stored under lock and key in the Regimental Library) that the Commander of that Regiment was distinguished by the Ostrich Feather he wore in his hat. This is not shown in the game – you idiots!”…
Gamers want to play a game. I will pass on the tassels if it means I can have more units in the game. Tassels are nice – but they are just graphics thieves.

-I agree.-

Again I quote this:
The game will feature over 50 maps, divided throughout England, Russia and Morocco, across 55 provinces and 29 maritime regions.

European only + 1780s(?) to 1820(?) = Napoleon.

This being the case I would suggest that you do away with the Strategic Element altogether. Make the game along the lines of “Kessen” (PS2) where the player manages the battle but the course of the war is scripted. Why? Because if you are aiming at the ‘History Buffs’ this is the only way to run a historical game. It will also allow you to focus your energy on the battles and the graphics within those battles.

-That would be awful. I would hate playing a scripted game where you can't make a difference so there is no point in even playing.-

If you want to move away from this and allow strategic choice then you should accept that the game will be ahistoric and forget the ‘History Buffs’. You have to expand you map and your time period. True that is more work – but as I will explain below – it also expands your market.

-I agree.-

What Empires can the player choose of?
You can play as one of the five great Empires of this period: Great Britain, France, Russia, Prussia or Austro-Hungary. Each Empire has it’s own strengths, weaknesses and units such as Hussars, Lancers, Dragoons, Imperial Guards and many more.


Again that’s nice, but who is the target audience? Those bloody demanding thinkers! They will want to play any force from the period – and they are smart enough to know who was available.
Already I see “Where are the Spanish, the Swedish and the Ottomans?” After all, you cannot market to ‘Real History Buffs’ and then not include all the forces that would have been available.
No Americans? That will limit appeal and market as well. How to include Americans? The American Revolution (more on this below).

-I think Five Empires are enough for now, but I believe that more nations should be added in the Expansion that I am hoping for so much.-


What is the maximum of units one can expect during battle?
Pyro Studios hasn't gone for 'enormous' battles in this game, rather around 2.000 units simultaneously on-screen. The approach Pyro Studios is taking is to simulate more realistic battles, with great graphical variety between units; a large animation set; detailed, interactive maps and a fairly complex AI system. Basically, Pyro Studios wanted to avoid rows of near identical looking 'toy soldiers' all behaving in more or less the same way.


Small Unit Actions? Great! I can think of a number of places where that would work. (see below)
But part of the appeal for me is those huge battles. If I cannot fight Valmy, Austerlitz, Salamanca, Waterloo, Cape St Vincent and Trafalgar I will not be buying this game – no matter how pretty it looks. I will wait for the next try at this where I CAN fight those battles. True – it may not be quite as graphically polished – but I want to play a war game, not watch a movie.

-I, once again, agree.-

So what do I want?
A game covering a very interesting era with a lot of choices.
A look at the screenshots really excites me. Strategic and Tactical Warfare in the Age of Muskets! Maritime warfare as well!
So what wars would I like to fight and what would I like to be able to do?
Fight some of the Colonial Actions and Wars in North America and Caribbean:
Louisbourg (1745); “The Fortress itself had cost 1-2 percent of the Annual Budget of the French Ministry of the Marine between 1716 and 1740.”
The fall of French Canada 1758-1760, where the tactics were similar to European warfare but the numbers were smaller. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the French had won. Would this have led to an American + English Alliance in the American War of Independence?

-No, it wouldn't have because New France(the french colony in North America)was not the Thirteen Colonies and the French were just fighting a defensive battle, they had not the resources or the motivation for an invasion of the Thirteen colonies. I also don't see reason in the Britsh signing an alliance with the enemy to fight against themselves(the King wasn't that stupid).-

Havana (1762) and Naval & Marine actions across the Caribbean.
The American War of Independence (1775-83): What if the British had won?
The Far East:
India? Dutch East Indies?
Battle of Plassey (1757)

-I agree with your general concept that this game should allow history to be altered.-

It is also worth noting that Britain and the American Colonies again went to war in 1812 and several small but Historic Naval actions were fought (USS Chesapeake v. HMS Shannon comes to mind without using any reference texts – and I’m no expert)
A few seconds on Google reveals the USS Hornet v. HMS Peacock, 1813.

As for Sweden? Naval battle at Svensksund v Russia (1790) no minor power there. Real History Buffs will know this too and it will affect Russia’s ability to develop as a Naval Power in the game. You miss this out and they will cane you for it.

-You must have your own Copy of "War at Sea in the Age of Sail" sitting out on the desk in front of you. Its a great book.-

I want to be able to fight Marine + Shore Actions too – with Naval support.
The Battle of Bunker Hill (1775). Does the game engine allow me to do this? It should.

-Check out the forum "really wonder how naval battles will work" for those answers.-

So what is needed?
An expansion of the time frame from Early – Mid 1700s (as far back as the Battle of Blenheim (1704) perhaps?) to perhaps as far as Crimean War (1853-56). Although the Prussians introduced Dreyse Needle Guns in 1840s, so maybe stop in 1820s or 30s?
Expand the Map to include Americas and East Indies as far as Australia.

-I agree with this because I think that tactics and weaponry changed very little in the years 1700 or even 1650-1850 in comparison to 1850-1900, so I think they should expand the timeframe to include earlier times rather than later ones.-

-The map does need to expand because in reality events in the colonies very much affected the policies at home but, because, in the game, the colonies are not on the map I fear they may become irrelevant and only a permanent source of income.-

Czar
19th Aug 2004, 04:43
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Erm, you want the game to be totally historicly accurate by taking away the non-linear aspects but then you say that without choice you won't like the game? :confused:

No, I'm saying that if the Game is aimed at 'History Buffs' then it has to be historic - and the only way to do that is to take away the Strategic choice. If you allow strategic choice then the game will not be historic (player influence) and the History Buffs will be upset. I would buy a historic game like this, but only if I could play all the historic battles. (I gave "Kessen" as an example - the game was an education as much as a game)

Aiming the game at History Buffs is limiting. Personally, I want strategic choice - and if that means that the game becomes ahistoric - I am happy with that. This is what Willmore is saying too. And if you are going to take this option then the map - and the choices must be expanded.

But what we appear to have at the moment is 'middle ground' - a "historic" game with limited strategic choice. Not enough to keep me happy (I want to crush the American Revolution!:D ) and just enough to upset the History Buffs.

So, you see, I propose a choice. One or the other. And which ever option is chosen - do it 100%.


I am Canadian!,
Thank you for your comments and your Book reference - I will look that one up.:)
The only thing is that I would not rely on an expansion. This game is still Vaporware at the moment - and if it is released and bombs then that will be that:(
The only way we will get expansions is if it is a success - and that will only happen if the designers make the correct choices.

Hope that clears up my position:)

Kai-Arne
19th Aug 2004, 18:49
Originally posted by Czar


But what we appear to have at the moment is 'middle ground' - a "historic" game with limited strategic choice. Not enough to keep me happy (I want to crush the American Revolution!:D ) and just enough to upset the History Buffs.



Hey, you're the only one I 'know' who is for England in the American Revolution, too (like me)! ;) I want to crush it, too but not in Imperial Glory! In IP I want to fight european battles against Napoleon and Napoleon 3. !
But I'm completely you're opinion: Limited choice to keep the game historic in an acceptable way, and leave a bit to the player!

PS:For whom would you be in the napoleonic wars? For or against Napoleon?

Arctic_Wolf
19th Aug 2004, 21:33
Originally posted by Czar
No, I'm saying that if the Game is aimed at 'History Buffs' then it has to be historic - and the only way to do that is to take away the Strategic choice. If you allow strategic choice then the game will not be historic (player influence) and the History Buffs will be upset. I would buy a historic game like this, but only if I could play all the historic battles. (I gave "Kessen" as an example - the game was an education as much as a game)

Aiming the game at History Buffs is limiting. Personally, I want strategic choice - and if that means that the game becomes ahistoric - I am happy with that. This is what Willmore is saying too. And if you are going to take this option then the map - and the choices must be expanded.

But what we appear to have at the moment is 'middle ground' - a "historic" game with limited strategic choice. Not enough to keep me happy (I want to crush the American Revolution!:D ) and just enough to upset the History Buffs.

So, you see, I propose a choice. One or the other. And which ever option is chosen - do it 100%.

Ah, I understand.

I don't think histroy buffs will be upset by choice, if they wanted a perfect simulation of real history then they would read a history book or watch that new CG programme on BB2 on firday nights, instead of playing a game. If not then they are idiots and do not deserve sympathy, even with just the battle it won't be perfect because what if they do something that didn't happen in the battle, if they were to scream at having the choice to undo history in the grander sense they certainly would in the battles, what if in real life the commander lost say 200 men but in the game the player lost 500, if they are as you say they would still scream the place down.

Also, the developers have said the game will be historically accurate but they didn't not say it would mirror history completely

Czar
20th Aug 2004, 01:13
Originally posted by Kai-Arne
PS:For whom would you be in the napoleonic wars? For or against Napoleon? [/B]

I would go with my heritage: Prussia and Britain :D

I am Canadian!
20th Aug 2004, 02:20
Hey, judging by your stance on the American Revolution, I'd say you're British. As my name suggests, I come from Canada(British North America), I have British heritage and I spent 2.5 years living in Britain, so I fully support the British and would also enjoy crushing the American rebels(why not in this game?).

Czar, I agree with many of your points and agree that they should make up their minds.

As for the Napoleonic question I fully support the British(Rule Brittannia!)and I might consider making an alliance with France if it was practical and in the best interests of the British Empire.

Willmore
20th Aug 2004, 02:29
I'm Russian, but I also lived in Britain for a year, and prefer it by far to my present country - USA. So I would be for Britain, as I feel they really need a good ass whoopin' .... as my Texas bretheren *cough* would say.

Czar
20th Aug 2004, 02:30
Originally posted by I am Canadian!
Hey, judging by your stance on the American Revolution, I'd say you're British.
...
As for the Napoleonic question I fully support the British(Rule Brittannia!)and I might consider making an alliance with France if it was practical and in the best interests of the British Empire.

British decent. (see above)

What I would like to do is play this game as Britain and crush the American Revolution using the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and ally with Prussia to use Prussian Infantry in land battles.:D
I would then tell the colonists to 'shut up' and drink their tea!:p

Then we will deal with those pesky French!:D

Kai-Arne
20th Aug 2004, 17:13
Originally posted by Czar
I would go with my heritage: Prussia and Britain :D

Exactly as me! (Althoug I have nothing to do with Great Britain)

McLeod
22nd Aug 2004, 16:12
Salute!

i would also like to say some words to czars post.

i agree with him, that 50 map are not enough, if the game is based on scenarios. aos is also scenario based and we made up to now about 700 new one, cause the originals are often unbalanced or don't fit for number of players online. mayby for single player the 50 are ok.
if the game bases just on maps like bf42, than 50 maps are quiet enough.
i don't know about the problems of detailed graphics and historic interessted players, so can't comment this argument.
but i would agree, that there should be the possibility of big battles, that is the facination of this time period.
there should also be more empires or the possibility to form new empires by modding (i.e gmax would be helpful there). an expansion pack surely can also do this job, but who knows if the games sells good enough to do so, or if new technics make it more interessting for the dev's to programm a complete new game.
i also would like to see the timeframe from somethink about 1700 to 1820 or 30. i know that there are not that much invetion at that time, but the coming up railways and machine guns, will make a complete different felling in the battle. no one would attack in a battle line, if his opponent uses machine guns, so tactics have to change completly, cavalery would be obsolet, like is was after the german-german (you call it prussian - austrian) war. also seabattles would be much different as i already worked out in another thread. to inclued instead of this the formaer time, would give the chance to play some other interessting war (right also the us-war of idependence and the 7 year war between britain and france).
at last i also agree with the argument for a bigger map or best a world map. many fights (land and sea) where done in the colonies or on the shipping-routes. those colonies were highly inportant for france and britain. without their money and good, none of them would have been able to become an empire.

Czar
24th Aug 2004, 16:20
I just realised there is another very interesting and as yet largley ignored War (in computer gaming) which would make the Americas interesting.

Texas and the Alamo
In 1835 Santa Anna marched north in the direction of San Antonio with an army of 3,000 men. He reached San Antonio in March 1836 and learned that about 150 armed Texans had taken refuge at an old Franciscan mission, called the Alamo. He laid siege to the mission for several days before the final attack on March 6, 1836.
(When I look at the screenshots I think how perfect they look for this battle!)

and the Mexican-American War 1846 & 47

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/mexico/mexico22.html

Lonewulf44
24th Aug 2004, 18:00
Whats this talk of crushing the American Revolution???.....Not on my watch!...lol, its funny how Americans fought the Revolution over a 3% tax, and yet its current government strangles wages with almost a 30% one! Anyway back to the game.......as of Prussian decent...I'm more looking forward to Uniting Germany.....only a bit earlier than Bismark, and making sure to grab Austria, Bohemia, Denmark into Gross Germania as well. I hope this games diplomatic and strategic elements are pursued fully.

Oh, and in case it was never mentioned...the war of 1812 had allot of land action as well. i.e. Toronto and Washington in flames should ring a bell.

Long live Prussia!

Czar
24th Aug 2004, 18:44
Originally posted by Lonewulf44
....Oh, and in case it was never mentioned...the war of 1812 had allot of land action as well. i.e. Toronto and Washington in flames should ring a bell.

Long live Prussia! [/B]

Indeed! Still more reason to include the Americas!

Lonewulf44
24th Aug 2004, 20:12
I'm totally for it! Oviously when the game is released it will focus on europe, but I'm hoping and I think that in the first expansion pack the map should be expanded to be the entire globe. This will allow empires, puppet states, alliances, trade, and many other factors to become much more important. Not to mention open up many more battlefields, tactics, and playable nations.


Long Live Prussia!

sick
24th Aug 2004, 22:01
You guys want the game to be released next year right? Any idea how much work it costs just to make the graphics of a game? I have a slight idea.
In Commandos 3 there is a certain file type that tells the game how the objects on the map look like when they do a certain action (stand, crawl, run, etc.) I listed all of those (175) files and it took me 2 days just to make screenshots of them, resize to 125×125 pixels, write a short description and put them in a html document. That makes me wonder how much time there was needed to make all the animations and textures.
I prefer an expansion which features other Empires above that the game already features them now. An editor would be great too.

Czar
25th Aug 2004, 05:48
Originally posted by sick
You guys want the game to be released next year right? Any idea how much work it costs just to make the graphics of a game? I have a slight idea...

....I prefer an expansion which features other Empires above that the game already features them now. An editor would be great too.

I'm no expert but I do know that much of the work is in the basic engine.

New armies and uniforms are just 'skins' which fit over the basic blank figures as supplied by the engine.

So the bulk of the work is in the code which defines how the armies will move, shoot, register hits, die and interact with the environment.
Changing a uniform (a skin) is quite literally childs play (in most games - don't know how easy it is in IG).
But, if the basic framework is not in place to begin with then players cannot do this.

So far, it looks like IG will only cover Europe. So, even if a player set up a skin for, lets say, the Mexican army at the Alamo there is no real use for it. That is a shame. :(


I will deal with the expansion issue in the other thread.;)

Vic Flange
8th Sep 2004, 17:31
That was one long post!:)
Some brief answers:

Maps
TW had more maps but they weren't hugely different from one another. Our maps have interactive areas with different objectives and take some time to produce and balance. As you say, we are a different game

Historical accuracy
The game will feature historically accuracte units etc but you're right, we can't cater for every eventuality. We know that we'll probably have table-top wargamers telling us that the buttons are not quite right on one particular uniform, but quite honestly, the game would never be finished if we went down to that kind of detail

Napoleon
Yes, he obviously influenced the period but the game's not about his particular campaigns. That's what the quote refers to - it's not a "play through until you reach Waterloo"-type game

Empires
Yes, there are five playable Empires but all the other nations of the period are in the game. You can trade with them, invade them, conduct diplomacy with them etc. America may not appear on the map, but that's not to say you won't come into contact with her. Timeframe is 1789-1830

Number of units
You can't please all of the people all of the time and this is the approach we've taken. Yes, we could've gone for a Cossacks-style but chose not to. We wanted detailed troops, lots of animations and deep AI, and for that you can't have enormous numbers of units if you want the game to run on a reasonable spec PC

Czar
8th Sep 2004, 17:34
Thank you for your time and your answers:)

I am Canadian!
9th Sep 2004, 00:23
Ya, thanks for the answers.

Willmore
9th Sep 2004, 02:22
Don't mean to bring up an old suject, but has the Russian flag issue come up with the devs ? Will it be changed to the historical one ?

Lonewulf44
9th Sep 2004, 16:50
Thanks for the answers....Time fram seems good enough for me, though I'll have to united Germany 30-40 years early it looks like.

Long Live Prussia!

AcceptGrits
11th Sep 2004, 04:25
Are there any specific rules/balancing or gameplay aspects that will curb rush tactics in the overall strategic map.

Eg. to prevent 1 or more provinces per turn attacks with continuous buildup of troops. (53 provinces will run out real fast).

:confused:

Vic Flange
17th Sep 2004, 10:33
Originally posted by AcceptGrits
Are there any specific rules/balancing or gameplay aspects that will curb rush tactics in the overall strategic map.
We're working on the balancing at the moment but our general feeling is that food will be a fairly large factor in the size of the armies you can maintain, so it won't be that easy to keep producing unit after unit as you can in RTSs.

On the Russian flag, we know it's an issue to be addressed but you'll notice in the latest round of screens and movies that it hasn't been updated yet.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 10:52
I am hoping there will be "few' restrictions on things like invading provinces and such.

The reason for having them is some thing like "OH WELL 53 PROVINCES WILL RUN OUT VERY FAST". Well, you probably cant just start the game and invade province after province and dominate the enemy unless you have it on super easy, which is your own damn fault if the game is "easy".

However, I think a player should be free to invade more than one province at a time, do more than one thing at a time, etc. For one, what if there is a two front war? and each turn you are forced to act on one front, or the other. (some thing like how WW2 was setup with germany in the middle).

In my opinion, the trick to preventing the game from being simply 1 team swiping accross the board, is to have enemy armies that oppose you, DUH. Not some cheasy little "rule" that prevents and handicaps military advances towards an enemy. I want to be able to have 3 armies invade 3 provinces at a time.




The response of "food" being a restriction on army sizes is agreeable, but then it brings up the question of this, if you retreat from a province rather than fight to defend it, can you have the option to "burn the crops" or some thing? Similar to what the russians did. The downside to this action would be; if you retake the province, you have to deal with the burnt down crops and low productivity.

That type of scenario may start rebellions, benefiting the defender even more. IE: in the province Champagne, of France, (coincidentally the same as my name), I retreat my forces and burn the fields behind me. When Germany occupies champagne the province, there is no food being produced there, there is an angry population (angered at the fact their occupyer is an enemy and has no food for them), and if the matters are not addressed immediately, the people of Champagne the province will starve and rebel against their occupiers. - If the rebellion is successful, they request to reunite with their former country, France.

This would force an invader to not only feed his army but have enough troops to maintain the lands he invades, and enough supplies to maintain those populatoins.


Not only that, but it would allow the defender the choice of fighting a superior enemy on the field right away, or retreating and gathering reinforcements to fight the big battle, or counter attack the province.

Meanwhile the attacker looses strength from Attrition, having to feed the population of the land, rebellion, less incentive for being there as there is no productivity in the land he just faught for.



Another idea I am thinking of, is, maybe limit where one can commense recruitment of troops in a realistic way. In a total war game, you invade a province, take it over, and immediately can recruit troops in that province.... Unrealistic in the sense, a population that hates you and sees you as an intruder, would NEVER join your army without first warming up to you. So maybe, make it so the populations of the designated province have to like you before you can begin recruitment of troops. This would increase the realism, also make it easier for the defender, and add some more politics to the game, as you have to please your population before they will die defending you.

One way the above idea will help a defender, is once a province is lost, the enemy cannot begin pumping troops out of that province immediately, they most first import them.

Similar to the war in iraq, USA invades iraq, but almost no iraqis wanted to fight for the USA until they first warmed up to the cause of democracy, and now there is a new iraqi military being trained by american troops, fighting for iraq side by side with the americans.

Alot of suggestions and Ideas, but, hey, thats what a forum is for.

Vic Flange
17th Sep 2004, 12:24
You'll be unable to recruit troops in a newly-conquered area immediately. It'll have to undergo a period of assimilation beforehand.

Scorched earth not currently planned, though not all features of the game have been finalised yet.

It's up to you how many places you want to invade per turn. Whether you'll have sufficient forces to be successful though, is another matter.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 12:30
I think the scorched earth idea would be a good implimentation. Afterall, it is realistic, and it WAS used. And with food playing a role in the use, construction, and maintenance of armies, I believe this could make the game more strategic.

AcceptGrits
17th Sep 2004, 14:37
IMHO scorched-earth implementation will be bad.

What if the AI simply retreats about half of the time? Mathematically, in 53 provinces, say you own 5, the rest of the AI 48 and half the battles are a retreat. Then that means you only fight a minimum 24 battles.

A lot of players may be upset by this.

Just an opinion ( not to sound didactic at all ).:)

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 17:20
You wouldnt scorch the earth every time... Only if it was a permanent retreat.



For instance, if an enemy invades a province that you will easily counter attack in a turn or two and recapture, there would be no reason to scorch the earth, it would screw yourself becuase when you retake it the farms will have to be rebuilt. You would only scorch the earth on a parmenant retreat from a location you will be unable to recapture.

Aside from that, all they would have to do is code the AI so it would do it as sparingly as possible.

As no country would enjoy destroying its own resources.

Examples of tihs can be seen with the russians during napoleans invasion, and ww2, and the iraqis burning the oil fields in kuwait before they retreated, and the baathists burning the oilfields in iraq before the americans reached baghdad.

It is a tactic that has been used and will be used again in warfare when making a permanent retreat from which the likes of you counter attacking in the future are very slim.

It may piss you off when it happens to you, but it is realistic, and it would piss any war planner off when the tactic is used in real life.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 17:21
Also, scorching the earth would only be an option if you retreated BEFORE fighting the battle. and you must leave the province as well, no castle fortifying.

They invade your province your givent he option of Stay an fight, Retreat to Castle, Abandon Province, Abandon province and scorch the earth. Get it?

Ragnar_NZ
18th Sep 2004, 16:26
Sorry, irrelevant.

Look, the aim of scorched earth policies is to stretch the opponants supply line. They force the French (for example) to truck grain from Paris to supply their troops in Russia, instead of buying it in the Ukraine. So then they have to transport it over huge distances, which takes months, the grain goes mouldy, rats eat it, the trucks break down or get ambushed etc etc and in the mean time the peasants are revolting and the supply route needs extra garrison. So its a very effective strategy when you're dealing with real maps covering hundreds and thousands of miles. So much can go wrong. But we're talking about a GAME with 53 PROVINCES! Dude! Moscow is probably one province away from Warsaw! Two away from Berlin! So supply route? What supply route? If there are supply problems, which I very much doubt somehow, I don't think the game will go into that much detail, then supplying troops laying seige to Moscow would be as difficult as walking to the neighbour's and asking for some sugar.

Champagne
19th Sep 2004, 03:58
None of us know exactly how the game will play out, or where all the provinces are located and how they are divided. North africa could be split into two provinces while russia and germany could make up 20. We dont know, but it is still good to float ideas like this around.

On another note, I was experimenting with medieval total war today, my empire had reached its farthest point and my armies were too thing to defend my southern territory, as the turkish invaded to regain their lands, I opened the buildings menu, and destroyed all buildings/factories/production centers, in all the provinces of the land I was giving up while I sent new armies on their way to the front where I would hold the turkish off....

Well, the strategy worked, and not only worked, but it worked great. The turkish could not build **** on their frontlines, or any where near them, and they had no castles to fall back to, no farmlands to produce wealth with, etc.... A great strategy ify ou ask me.


If they dont include "scorched earth" they should at least allow you to manually destroy buildings and such, like in total war, so this tactic could be used regaurdless.

BlackCoat
21st Dec 2004, 15:34
Originally posted by Willmore
Don't mean to bring up an old suject, but has the Russian flag issue come up with the devs ? Will it be changed to the historical one ?

http://www.fotw.us/images/r/ru_tzp.gif

This one?

Willmore
22nd Dec 2004, 01:41
Not exactly, there was a topic a while ago, I'll try to find it.


edit:

here's one http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45924