PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions box



Champagne
16th Sep 2004, 03:53
Here is my main gripe about the current screens and game. I dont like at all the "view" of the strategic map. I am hoping for an option to change the map used. You may say "ohh what does it matter" well it does matter, because you will be staring at the map in single player just as long as you will be commanding troops.

Also, I prefer a map that shows either, city names and territorial names, or a map that shows the actual landscape instead of just the "dull" silhouette of europe as seen in the screenshot below.
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/jsikking/Imperial%20Glory/Imgs/Screenshots/Imperial_screen016.JPG

I would much rather prefer some thing like this, with city names of the time, and territories outlined.
http://www.amherst-maps.com/aam/Maps/Europe/Moll-Europe-1730.jpg

Or maybe like this, with the actual landscape of europe with smooth outlined territories.
http://www.vefsn.vgs.no/web2002/bilder/europe_satelite.jpg



Having an option in the options menu to change the texture used for the map would be good. The maps could be named like "Map Style: Military Map, Classical Globe, Satelite View". It would be some thing as simple as adding in 2 more skins for it and the option to toggle them.

Some thing that simple should not be difficult, and please dont say "Make a mod that changes it" becuase you know full well there will be no editing tools availible and I probably havent the skill to change some thing like that.

Lonewulf44
16th Sep 2004, 16:31
I'll agree that the map should show some better border lines, allow for cities, and more detail, but I think the general system they have is at least ok. Granted, I want a more strategic game than this, but I could go along with some more map options. It would be nice if they included some kind of menu to custimize what kind of map you wanted. It might not change the gameplay in anyway, but it would still be nice to have the map settings just as you like em.

Long Live Prussia!

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 10:58
NOTE: THIS IS COPIED FROM ANOTHER THREAD, BELONGS HERE!

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.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 11:15
An idea for populations of diferent cultures and their treatment towards invaders.


Ok, for one, in the total war series if there is a diference in religion, there is a resentment towards the leader and his subjects of a particular province. This is cured by sending bishops and inquisitors to the province and always keeping a strong occupying force.

In another game, called Age Of Wonders, a game similar to the lord of the rings world, there is a system of races. Orcs dont like humans but are friends with goblins. The leader of the human race, can invade an orc city that resents him, but then build crops in their city, improve the cities defences, and do good deeds for the orcs. This in turn makes the orc population slowly but surely lighten up to humans. When the city was first invaded, it might have started a rebellion in the city becuase orcs hated humans, but now that the humans have treated the orcs good, by improving their city and such, they lightened up and are subject to recruitment. Any orc city from that point on, wont have rebellions, and will treat their invader just as good as they would treat their orcish leader.

Taking another direction, a human leader who has terrible relations with an orc race, could "migrate" the orcs out of the city into exile, and immigrate humans into the city. This worsens relations with the orcs, but it doesnt matter much when theres no more orcs to deal with. (similar to the original nazi plans of handling conquered territory. They planned to remove civillians of poland or russia, and replace them with aryan-germans, eventually colonizing all of europe with german speaking aryans only, while destroying every other culture).

In age of wonders, there was also the ability to loot the city of most of its wealth, stealing from the general population. Again, destroying relations between the two races, but if you have no intention of keeping that race there, or keeping that terrritory (suppose you knew a counterattack was coming) then using an option like this was some what strategic.

Having good relations with german peoples (not necessarily their government) would make them less likely to rebel when you invade a german province. The people of the land would see it as a war between your government and their government, and not a war between your people and their people, thus lessoning their cause of calling to arms against you as they know you will treat them as equals.





A system like that of Age of Wonders, or any of the above, could really make the singleplayer campaigns interesting and fun. Provinces could have a general "race" or a "language" or "orientation". Such as english territories being undoubtedly "english", french ones being french, etc. This could change by destroying the population and immigrating your own to the province. (A successful example of this, would be the 13 english colonies, and all european conquests into the new world, the native populations were destroyed and exiled while the european populations were brought in by the boatload to colonize the new land, turning new york from Iroquois to English). I believe a system like this would greatly improve the quality of the game and give it even more of an edge over Rome Total War (undoubtedly the lead-opponent of Imperial glory, like it or not, diferent ages but same genre).

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 11:20
Maybe even, investing in "propaganda ministers" for provinces could increase the amount of patriotism of your province-population. In turn, this would result in strong rebellions and resentment for invading forces, and depending on the percentage of patriotic civillians you have, the rebellions that rise up could be stronger, or better equipped than regular rebellions, and may rise up even if the invader has good relations with your folk.

Vic Flange
17th Sep 2004, 12:30
Originally posted by Champagne
I dont like at all the "view" of the strategic map.
The map is non-final. You'll also be able switch between military and commercial views to get different information.

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 12:34
Nice to see a dev that actually replies to posts and gives feed back.

AcceptGrits
17th Sep 2004, 14:25
I think the map appearance is just fine, so long as it is functional. A more pressing issue is balancing the gameplay and units.


:cool:

Champagne
17th Sep 2004, 17:29
I have played a game called "Empires" (www.empiresrts.com), and in it they have the french during the imperial age.... Man o man I cannot stand the imperial age in that game.... They made the french have the weakest units in the world, coupled with the weakest artillery in the world and the worse cavalry. All of which is equal in price however. For special abilities though, they self heal when idol, and can travel threw forests (as other units in the game cant).

Still a complete and horid imbalance, as all english units of the age are superb in firepower and health, yet equal in cost. I have no idea what the game designers for Empires were thinking when they released the product with such an imbalance in that epoch.

Obviously this game will be nothing at all similar to that, as this game is historically accurate. The french had the largest cavalry charge in history at waterloo, and also a pretty hefty assembling of artillery. With french infantry being able to march all over europe freely, Im pretty sure they could not have been too bad either.

Ragnar_NZ
18th Sep 2004, 16:47
I would like to see more diplomatic options, such as free passage agreements, sending military and financial aid, loans. I am Russia, and my ally, Prussia, is at war with France, so I want to send an army through Prussia to help them fight.

How about dictating terms of defeat? The winner could dictate what diplomatic alliances the loser may have, could dictate what they may or may not build in certain provinces, determine if tribute should be paid, and if so how much. They could tell the loser not to make any fortifications or have any military presence above garrison in certain provinces - one way of securing a border.

You could declare a ceasefire then talk about terms.

Ragnar_NZ
18th Sep 2004, 16:54
How good is the administrative aspect of the AI?

When playing MTW, I found that in the late war I was the only one with advanced units. I found that if I left a country undisturbed for 300 years and then invaded with the finest army Europe had ever seen, he would be defending with peasants and militia. They only time I ran into advanced units was when someone rebelled or "reappeared". The country AI's never made them. God knows what they did with their money, they all had exremely high taxes but never really developed their economic or military structure.

Champagne
19th Sep 2004, 03:53
All though some if not all of these ideas are great and would make the game wonderful, it may end up being that it is too late in development to-recode the systems for what we are discusisng. Likely leaving these suggestions to not be seriously considered however they may still be read and discussed.

Keep this in mind when you post, I feel I myself went a little too in depth with some of the ideas I had.

Kagetora
22nd Sep 2004, 19:46
Hello, newb here, buty I am a huge Total War fan. One thing I've noticed about this game that seems kinda crappy, is the unit size. 40 man infantry seems kinda small, so couldn't they make it more like 100-200 men per unit?

Champagne
22nd Sep 2004, 20:28
Nothing is written in stone, and as in total war, you will be able to change the amount of infantry from small unit sizes to large or huge.

Every thing however is subject to change sa the game has length of time before its out.

Kagetora
22nd Sep 2004, 20:42
What about sieges, is there any info on they will be handled.

Arctic_Wolf
22nd Sep 2004, 22:16
I don't think seige warfare will play as a big a role in this game. Cannons could really rip apart walls and so large fortifications became less useful, though I do not think they died out completely.

Maybe someone else can answer better, while I do have some knowledge on this period of history many people here seem to specialise in the Imperial Age.

Champagne
24th Sep 2004, 13:24
Some what incorrect, as some forts could withstand an entire 24 hours of massive bombardment by cannons armed with the technology of the time. Fortified positions, did still hold tremendous benefit. Examples of which, could be the battle between Texans and Mexicans at the alamo, or the battle between the british navy and the american Fort McHenry. Fort McHenry is a legendary example, as it survived almost 24 hours of intensly concentrated cannon fire from the entire british navy.

By the American Civil War, forts began to loose their strength, but this was in the 1860s. Cannons of that erra, I believe, had rifled barrels and could shoot against walls with dreadful accuracy, utterly destroying them. But this is 30 years after the game of Imperial Glory will have ended.

However IMO, enough artillery in any age of time, and a fortified position is a bad place to be. But fortified and defencive, none the less.

Arctic_Wolf
25th Sep 2004, 12:16
Bleh, stupid histroy books.

Champagne
26th Sep 2004, 14:52
I am hoping they include forts, and allow you to name them, as that would be cool.

Mastalerz
29th Sep 2004, 01:35
Yeah forts would be a great addition I know they were added in Rome Total War you can set them up on the map, infact a good part of the F&I War was over forts.

The_Russian_Rocket
29th Sep 2004, 23:00
(Staying on topic)
I think that map looks fine. Sort of a risk type of map. I wouldn't enjoy city names and province names clutering my map.

Arctic_Wolf
30th Sep 2004, 21:14
I like the idea of cities appearing on maps, they could act sort of like strong points that need time to be worn down before you can truly assimilate their province into your nation.

Maybe you could see an overlay of your nation's colours and the colours of the nation you're conquering, and although the province is techicly yours you can see your influence/support and your oppositions bending around the various important towns and cities. If the enemy end up getting enough then maybe they would have the oppurtunity to organise an uprising/rebellion to occur.

e.g say the french have launched a massive invasion into England, their troops have taken the english garrisons by surprise since the bulk of their army is off skirmishing in spain. Now while they may technicly have taken england, from london to liverpool, there could still be other cities like York and Manchester that are fiercly holding out against them stopping them from taking total control.

Its probably too late to see sometihng like this, unless its perhaps already there in some form, but I think its an interesting idea.

Vic Flange
13th Oct 2004, 14:18
Originally posted by Ragnar_NZ
I would like to see more diplomatic options, such as free passage agreements, sending military and financial aid, loans. I am Russia, and my ally, Prussia, is at war with France, so I want to send an army through Prussia to help them fight.
You can perform various diplomatic options, such as loaning troops, donating money/resources to other nations, signing right of passage agreements etc. Basically, what you outline above plus more.

Siege warfare isn't a big part of the game, but when you invade a capital you'll come up against some kind of large structure (e.g. the castle and palaces you've seen in screenshots) or something akin to a town. You can use howitzers to destroy buildings and kill enemy units stationed within them.

The Empires' influence in each of the provinces is represented. Right-clicking on a province will bring up a dialogue box with this information, together with info on resource production and the topography of the region. This doesn't go down to the city-level though.

Ragnar_NZ
27th Oct 2004, 18:18
Thanks! Sweet!