PDA

View Full Version : An interesting read



Mike_B
17th Dec 2004, 16:54
Computer and Videogames have putted up an interesting interview (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php?id=110591).

Definately worth the read it gives some new information.

BlackCoat
17th Dec 2004, 17:08
This part i find fascinating:


Valencia: The game takes place in Europe and the North of Africa, through 55 different land regions and 29 maritime areas. It is not based on various campaigns or missions, but in one campaign with the possibility of choosing the empire. This selection will be definitive during the rest of the game and will define the starting resources, the diplomatic possibilities and the commercial options with the rest of the territories.

So take britain, and you cannot be at peace with france? Or perhaps be russia and you can never build tech-x gunfactories??

Arctic_Wolf
17th Dec 2004, 17:46
I hope thats just a miswording. :(

BlackCoat
18th Dec 2004, 14:28
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
I hope thats just a miswording. :(

I gather you had wished for all empires looking the same, just diffrent colors?

I wonder of it will include some aok:ish bonuses...ie
Britsh warships +50% hp +30% Fire Power,
French soldeiers +25% hp +40% Fire Power,
Preussian troops +50% morale
Russian recruits -66% price etc..

Or maybe then just make nelson a one heck of a admiral, and include the bonuses in his person. Guess that, since the interview spoke of you swearing in swahili over the death of an upgraded leader :D

Arctic_Wolf
18th Dec 2004, 22:50
Why did you have say something so stupid.

I do not want all the nations to be the same, however I want the possibilities, how far I can take those nations, to be the same. If I feel like making Russia into a super industrial power then I want to be able to do that, of course I expect it would be a lot harder than doing it with Britain but I still would like to be able to do it. If I felt like making Austro-Hungary into the greatest maritime nation on earth then I should still be able to do it, it would also be a lot harder than Britain. but I don't want anything to stop me.

If I'm playing as the Great Britain, I do not want to have to declare war on France, I'll probably still do it, but I don't want to be made to.

BlackCoat
19th Dec 2004, 03:21
Aah.. so you objected to the diplomatic constraints. I thought it was, well, anyway ;)

Yeah, being forced to act diplomatically in a certain way is pretty dumb, that much i agree... but i dont see that being a typo in the interview :(

Arctic_Wolf
20th Dec 2004, 17:54
I didn't mean a typo as in 'Diploomatik uptoions', but maybe he misworded the phrase in a way which implies a meaning that wasn't the intention. English people do it all the time so it wouldn't be too hard to conceive of someone who is likely not a native speaker doing so, or maybe he wasn't speaking in english and all that text is translated, making it even more likely that there may be a misunderstanding.

I suppose we'll have to get a conformation, before we can really know.

Clausewitz
21st Dec 2004, 01:25
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
I suppose we'll have to get a conformation, before we can really know. There is additional information about this in the interview, and it is rather reassuring:

The player may take, if he wishes to do so, many involving decisions that will completely change the evolution of the gameplay. We wanted the player to be able to make those different types of decisions, and not just make him follow a path, that would require few or very similar decisions in order to achieve victory.

Imperial Glory can be played in many different ways, and after a few turns the player will appreciate that even playing with the same empire, by taking different decisions, that they will experience a completely different game.

(...)

In any case, what we have tried in Imperial Glory is to have a historical background, but not to give history lessons. We don't want the player to recreate history, but to drive his empire in the way that he wishes to, so in a game we may find things like alliances between Spain and the British empire in order to attack the Russians.

Claus

BattleKnight
21st Dec 2004, 19:14
Originally posted by Clausewitz
There is additional information about this in the interview, and it is rather reassuring:

The player may take, if he wishes to do so, many involving decisions that will completely change the evolution of the gameplay. We wanted the player to be able to make those different types of decisions, and not just make him follow a path, that would require few or very similar decisions in order to achieve victory.

Imperial Glory can be played in many different ways, and after a few turns the player will appreciate that even playing with the same empire, by taking different decisions, that they will experience a completely different game.

(...)

In any case, what we have tried in Imperial Glory is to have a historical background, but not to give history lessons. We don't want the player to recreate history, but to drive his empire in the way that he wishes to, so in a game we may find things like alliances between Spain and the British empire in order to attack the Russians.

Claus

Don't want to sound like a n00b on my first post, but if you would look around the RTW previews, you would find the same 'marketing'. Don't believe those words until you have played the game yourself, there is a whole lot of difference between a dev playing the game he made and a consumer.

Still, as long as it resembles RTW or MTW, I'll be more than happy to test this game.

BlackCoat
21st Dec 2004, 23:36
Originally posted by BattleKnight
Don't want to sound like a n00b on my first post, but if you would look around the RTW previews, you would find the same 'marketing'. Don't believe those words until you have played the game yourself, there is a whole lot of difference between a dev playing the game he made and a consumer.

Still, as long as it resembles RTW or MTW, I'll be more than happy to test this game.

Im with you on that. The years certainly have shown that to understand anything the fineprint has to be read and the generalisations ignored ;)

Clausewitz
22nd Dec 2004, 19:47
Originally posted by BlackCoat
The years certainly have shown that to understand anything the fineprint has to be read and the generalisations ignored ;) I merely pointed out what the fine print said. And your initial suggestion isn't there in the fine print. You asked: 'So take Britain, and you cannot be at peace with France?' Valencia says you can put your empire on a course totally different from the historical one. If he's making that up, of course, it means we will have to kill him.

I claim the first shot.:cool:

Claus

BlackCoat
22nd Dec 2004, 20:27
Its just that text like this is rather typical spin.