PDA

View Full Version : my "opinion" on this game...



d3v
5th Jan 2005, 23:25
Hi, my first post here and i'd just link to say something.

This game will be nothing other than a great game for te casual gamer that has none to minimal knowledge or concern for strategy.

Yes it will looks and sound great but I just know that underneath the good looks, there will be no real meat, depth or strategical gameplay to it.

How do I know this?

Well the only 2 games in gaming history to contain a real depth and strategy is Shogun TW and Medieval TW.

Unfortunatly the bastards at Activition or Creative Assembly decided they waned more money so they made their next TW game (R TW) alot more appelaing to the mass-market by dumbing down the strategy and removing any real depth to it. Creative Assembly where once good :mad:

Its really sad and will be the case for this game too.

Dumbed down minimal depch and strategy = more appealing to more people = more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Highly detailed and depthfull strategical gameplay = appelaing to only the strategy and realism lovers = less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Anyone, I long for another large-scale strategy game that will provide 2 solid years of enjoyment like S TW and M TW did.

Imperial Glory will NOT be it and i doubt the gaming industry will bring us anything to match S TW and M TW :mad:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

d3v
5th Jan 2005, 23:40
oh for ***** sake.

I've just watched the trailer again and noticed that lines will open fire even though there freindlys infront of them.

This just further reinforces my "opinion" (fact) about this game.

Nothing more tha a click to move enemy there, click to attack enemy here, wait and see who wins :rolleyes:

When the bloody hell will the gaming industry bring us something that matches or exceeds STW and MTW?

Ohh wait, there will never be becuase those two games made next to nothing :rolleyes:

Money driven gaming industry and so many development companys will stay well cleer of realism to make their game appeal to the mindless masses.

Its a very sad state and will only get worse.

Creative Assembly, the makers of the Total War series turned bad with their latest releases, Rome: Total War. They *****ed the TW fans over for the sake of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[No Swearing] money money money, thats all they want, [Read our rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1)]

I'm sure those of you that long for something to match STW and MTW can understand my frustration and anger...

sick
6th Jan 2005, 00:07
Like you I can get pretty angry sometimes about the fact that many developers try to make as much money as possible, instead of creating a quality game. So I understand your anger, but I think without any doubt Pyro Studios would do this. I played all of their games with many pleasure and I think it was worth the money. I'm sure Imperial Glory will be a good game as well which I will play many hours without getting bored. Not everything is known about the game, Pyro Studios will probably have some surprises for is. Untill the game is out I can't give my final opinion, neither can you.

d3v
6th Jan 2005, 05:05
hey dude, u only have to look at the trailers to know this game is not going to achieve the level of strategy most startegy lovers desire...

See how men fire even though there's friendly forces infront of them?

Totall bloody rediculous and is just proof that the guys making this game are staying WELL clear of proper combat strategy.

Mike_B
6th Jan 2005, 09:34
Hold your horses man,

Firstly you should direct your ode to CA on their forum I'm sure they'll be delighted to read it.

Furthermore but your cristal boll (or whatever it is you use to look in the future) away and wait untill a demo comes out or untill you actually played the game before making such assumptions.

The trailers are of early development and do not represent how the game is at the moment. For all we know some things that were seen in the trailer may have been totaly changed, remember balancing is usually done in the final months of development.

It really amazes me that you already know that this game will not be "it". I don't think you have any experience with playing other games of Pyro Studios but I can assure you that there are not CA, they usually do things on their own way. When they released their games they practicly brought a new strategy genre on the market so I would not doubt them. They are the company behind the brilliant Commandos and the higly underrated Praetorians (if you prefer combat you really should check this game out).

Oh and finally reread the rules as was suggested, and you might want to refrain from calling developers that you've never even seen names.

The rules (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1)

d3v
6th Jan 2005, 19:36
"Praetorians a good war game".

Is that a typo? I hope it is.

I have had plety of experiance with Pyro games. The Commando series is excellent but that means nothing...

I have no crystal ball, just 9 years of hardcore PC gaming experiance to go by:D

Trust me, this game will not reach a decent strategical level atall.

The only "large-scale" strategy game that seems to have developers or its publishers not so fixiated on $$$$ is Strategical Command: War over Europe. i think thats the name of it and its being published by Codemasters.

It looks set to achieve the realism and depth that STW and MTW brought us but I could be wrong but judging by the screens, info and trailers, I dont think I am.

BlackCoat
6th Jan 2005, 20:29
Surely you didnt use the words "depth" and "realism" in the same sentence as MTW?
The idea was good behind the game, but oh dear, the actual game... where do we start, useless wars, endless destruction, no-brain aggression, endless trade wealth.. building that grabs all time and reason. Please!


By the looks, with actual diplomacy and some depth into the specifics of each nation, IG should be the winner, between theese two. Atleast if it works out.

A features that would be nice to have, and likely neccesary as provinces are large: Building multiple units at a time.
Buildings too..allows rebuilding(?) and upgrading of newly taken ones without spending half the game building basics in the newly conquered and having zillions in cash at the same time.

PS, maybe you should be using multiple "€":s instead? Not that more than one is neccesary, but I dont believe "$" is the relevant currency ;)

Mike_B
7th Jan 2005, 09:47
Originally posted by d3v
[B]"Praetorians a good war game".

Is that a typo? I hope it is.

In order for it to be a typo I would have to actually typed it.

But regardless, I prefer untill I actually played the game before commenting on the gameplay.

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 10:30
I do agree TW games SP comapign is rather ****e and shallow but its the actual gameplay that comes first and foremost and the ammount of deptch to it was incredible.

There were literally dozens of small variables and stuff that could determine theoutcome on any engagment.

Pojecticle stat file contained INSANE ammounts of detail that effect missile flight.

I highly doubt any game will come close to STW and MTW's battle deatail nd relaism.

Most games are like.

If A unit is stronger than B unit. A unit will win.

Absolute totaly piece of **** basic undepthful disgracfull **** taking ****e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.

Wee Bald Man
7th Jan 2005, 13:18
What part of "no swearing" don't you understand?

Privateer
7th Jan 2005, 13:48
Really d3v, if you actually want to get a point across, try to post something without swearing - it works wonders!


Anyway, you will have to wait until a demo emerges to get the whole picture of what IG will be like. I have some minor things against this game, but I want to be able to play it before I give it a yay or a nay.


As for the TW games, they are good fun to play, but are certainly not the most realistic games.

Mike_B
7th Jan 2005, 13:55
Originally posted by d3v
I do agree TW games SP comapign is rather ****e and shallow but its the actual gameplay that comes first and foremost and the ammount of deptch to it was incredible.

There were literally dozens of small variables and stuff that could determine theoutcome on any engagment.

Pojecticle stat file contained INSANE ammounts of detail that effect missile flight.

I highly doubt any game will come close to STW and MTW's battle deatail nd relaism.

Most games are like.

If A unit is stronger than B unit. A unit will win.

Absolute totaly piece of **** basic undepthful disgracfull **** taking ****e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.

You've been asked repeatedly to refrain from swearing in your posts and re-read the forum rules. Seeing as you continue to use swearing instead of arguments I'm assuming you haven't read them. I highly recommand you do so and therefore I've putted them below:


No Cursing or Swearwords. We encourage you to use our Communities as a forum to debate topics, but please use proper adjectives to express yourself. This includes the creative use of different characters to circumvent our censor.

No abusive language. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Hate speech is not tolerated. We will not tolerate abuse upon another member!

No "Slam" postings. We have zero tolerance for "slam" postings to our boards. By slam postings, we mean posts that make statements such as, "This product is horrible. No one should buy it." Those postings will be removed from our site, as will any posting that refers to your fellow board users, our moderators, our developers, Eidos Interactive or even our competitors in a derogatory manner.

While you are not calling for a boycot of this game by posting that noone should buy it, you do keep going on about how bad it will be:


Absolute totaly piece of ***** basic undepthful disgracfull piss taking ****e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.

You keep saying things like this hower you refrain from backing it up, I haven't read why it would be and it surprises me that you already know how the game will be. And while you might have 9 years hardcore gaming experience that doesn't mean you can predict gameplay without playing a game.

So yeah, basicly to me your posts look like your we're frustated/dissapointed with RTW and are posting here because for some reason you are so convinced that this game will just be like it beside the fact that is made by another developer, published by another company and many other factors. But most importantly despite the fact that you have actually played the game or read a thorough write up over the strategy.

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 14:10
Its obvious i'm right.

Unrealistic gameplay gets bigger audiences, thus more money.

Realsitic gameplay attracts only hardcore and strategy lovers, thus less money.

"MTW not very realistic"

Thats rediculous. STW and MTW are the most realistic large scale RTW games ever created and will proably remain this way considering the ammount of money the 2 games made:mad:

BlackCoat
7th Jan 2005, 15:19
If you want this awesome realism, and think mtw was great, well, why not try EU2?

IGN Review (http://pc.ign.com/objects/016/016783.html?ui=gamefinder)

That game sure has no bigger flaws then a horrible loans system and that the game may sometimes take a fairly great turn from history... oh and austria usually dominates europe, france a good second, unless you are russia and do take colonisation and reform seriously, in which case youa re a real terror to behold ;)
Neither are the scenarios all that well thought out.. but the Grand campaign (1419-1820) sure compensates.

Features:
*Worldwide, province based
*Any single of the 200? nations are playable, from muscovy to songhai to huron. Sure huron will never develop the power of sweden, but thats life ;)
*Realtime, pausable (!)
*Exploration & colonisation
*Events, steering both to historical oitcomes and to less ghistorical ones. Almost all events have choises except where you would be dumb to take that "no", such in does spain want aztecs conquered? ;)
*Civilisation attributes, but steerable over a long time.. turning austria into a naval power?? Keeping England a continental power.. in favour of naval focus.. etc
*A very complex economical system, that fortunately the player doesent have to understand. It works anyway.

*and lots of more, too numerous to mention..
The most important thing being here, world conquest isnt goal, nor is it anyting but hellisly hard to accomplish. Hows that for realism?
As in fact, just getting your hostorical position (and a little extra) is usually enough of a task.

A ss of europe, the first day of the rest of the game
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/016/016783/img_1295225.html
The circular thingies around cities are capitals for that "nation"

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 17:44
lol what are u talking about?????

BattleKnight
7th Jan 2005, 17:57
I think d3v has a point though. If you look at the sales of STW and MTW, it was nothing compared to Warcraft 3 or C&C. It is true : most people love a good, quick and easy to master game. It is a matter of taste, nothing much you can do about it.

STW and MTW are great games though and there are a lot of people who did buy it. They prefer a deeper and more complex gaming experience. I prefer it above WC3, but if you don't have a lot of time, playing a MTW campaign can be frustrating due to the lack of progress.

Now, the main reason why I kept on eye on IG is because it resembles the TW series. You can't deny it, IG has a LOT in common with the TW series. This isn't bad, it is a good genre and as long they make great games, they can copy the mechanics.

But don't start a 'historical accurate' discussion. NO game, and I stress NO, can be historical accurate. The TW isn't accurate and IG won't be fully accurate as well. So don't critise the game because of it. You sometimes have to make sacrifices. I'm history geek myself, but developpers can only go so far. Remember Blackcoat, IG will turn out the same way : you will bring destruction to the field and buildings will be raised. Many will burn in our campaigns in IG. So, let us first see how the game actually plays, like you said.

dv3, I know that RTW isn't a great game. Indeed, it has been dumbed down (a bit). But if you look really close, money is and always be a major thing. I mean, if developpers only wanted to develop games in order to appeal to the masses, they would hand them out for free. But that isn't how the system works.

So, you can discuss it, but don't swear. Swearing brings nothing to a good discussion, only good and well thought-off arguments will do.

BK, signing off

EDIT: And I don't find Praetorians a good game. The setting was okay, but the combat way too chaotic. A good try, nothing more, IMHO.

BlackCoat
7th Jan 2005, 18:24
Originally posted by d3v
Lol.
What are you talking about?

That if you desire a highly realistic game, you may want to try Europa Universalis II, a game that, in my view, is still one of the best.
Ok so Syndicate rates very high too, as does MoO 1, but thats beside the point.

Just give it a try and see if your nine years of gaming expirience like it. Also as a subtler hint to the designers here that the standards are set high, atlest for me. ;)

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 19:08
You only have to watch the trailer to know the game will fail to achieve the standard that so many of us have longed for since STW and MTW.

Lines firing down range when theirs friendly lines directly infront of them is the biggest indication in the trailer that the developers care more for the money than for the game.

They can do it so damm easily, they can create something so realistic and depthfull so, so easily, but they wont becuase like i've been saying, the dumber the game, the bigger audience it attracts and therfore the more money it makes :mad:

I dont know if its Pyro or Eidos who are dumbing the game down for the bigger audeince. Quite likely both parties have agreed or Pyro could be under order from Eidos to draw a low line when it comes to realism and steategical combat system... Thats useually the case :mad:

Head of developer company: "hey mr publisher, is it okay if we add an advanced morale and weather system wherby the player must take weather and all the various morale increasing/decreasing varibles during gameplay into consideration?"

Head of Publishing company: "Hell know, we dont want the majority of the gaming market put off by such a complicated system and it would also increase the learning curve which is no good either"

The average gamer dosent want to have his three hundred thousand pound army he built up after 100 turns, loose a battle against a bunch of rebels becuase they have been marchin through thick mud for 2 hours and are subsequently too knackard to aim their muskets properly, nevermind scewer someone with a bayo...

Face it, this game wont bring us the game I and all you other strategy buffs have longed for since having the pleasure of playing STW and MTW.... :rolleyes:

sick
7th Jan 2005, 22:21
You only have to watch the trailer to know the game will fail to achieve the standard that so many of us have longed for since STW and MTW.

Lines firing down range when theirs friendly lines directly infront of them is the biggest indication in the trailer that the developers care more for the money than for the game.


When the trailer was released the development of the game was in alpha stage. The first thing to do is having the game ready in big lines, then come the details.




I dont know if its Pyro or Eidos who are dumbing the game down for the bigger audeince. Quite likely both parties have agreed or Pyro could be under order from Eidos to draw a low line when it comes to realism and steategical combat system... Thats useually the case

Head of developer company: "hey mr publisher, is it okay if we add an advanced morale and weather system wherby the player must take weather and all the various morale increasing/decreasing varibles during gameplay into consideration?"

Head of Publishing company: "Hell know, we dont want the majority of the gaming market put off by such a complicated system and it would also increase the learning curve which is no good either"


Of course Eidos has influence on the final product, but if you think a dumb game attracts a bigger audience you must be dumb yourself. The game does feature a weather and morale system. I suggest you read the FAQ, stickied at the top of this forum, and read the features of the game instead of looking at screenshots and trailers before making your conclusions. Then come back (unless you have nothing better to do than flaming.)

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 22:35
Yeah it know it has a morale system but my point was that it is going to be nothing more than a very, very basic one.

There are many variables that can influence unit morale but when the morale system takes them all into consideration, you end up with a very, very steep learning curve.

Dont disagree with that, its a proven theory in the games industry ;)

And what I mean by a dumb game is that the strategy and combat system will be dumbed down alot so it attracts a wider auidence.

You know i'm right....

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 22:43
Originally posted by sick
Of course Eidos has influence on the final product,

Actually, its not influence, its direct control over the content. its the developers that have the influence, not the control. The publishers do.

Eidos and all other publishers for that matter, want to make as much money as they can, there not init for good quality games.

You only have to look at the sheer ammount of genuine unoriginal poor-quality repetative un-innovative piles of **** we are given every year by the gaming industry with only the odd title here and there thats worth playing. There has been many years that not a single game has come ou thats worth playing for many a gamer I know of...

I'll say this again...

Dumb game = wider audience = more money
Depthfull and realistic game = smaller audience = less money

For christ sake, you only have to compare the ammount of money made from STW or MTW compared to, say Dawn of War or Fight for Middle earth to see that I'm right.

Imperial Glory will be a good game but I can tell you right now that it will not fullfill our desires for another large-scale RTS with the realism and level of strategy and depth STW and MTW had........

Grey Mouser
7th Jan 2005, 22:49
Crticism is allowed, swearing and being a jerk is not.

First and only warning from me, d3v. Your thoughts and opinions - if expressed in a sane and respectful manner - get listened to.

Ranting and cursing like a deranged sailor gets you banned. So does arguing with the Admin (me).

So...think before you type, OK?
GM

sick
7th Jan 2005, 22:54
Rule #1: The admin is always right.
Rule #2: If the admin is not right, see rule #1.

A classic but I still love it.:D

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 23:53
I'll refrain from bad language but its not just my opinion... its the truth... unfortunatly:(

Unless the majority of the market evolve from wanting pick-up-and-play games where you can learn instantly or very quickly, we will not ever see another STW/MTW :mad:

We will see games such as this that have basic strategical and tactical features and systems such as a morale and weather feature but they will always be very basic and we wont ever get a full on proper large-scale war game likw we got with STW and MTW... the majority simply prefer dumb games:rolleyes:

warobserver
7th Jan 2005, 23:54
well, i never inspect how the market be affected by between high strategical game and low. But i dont agree d3v on at least package game-war simulated. yes i do understand what d3v wants to point. and i checked and saw that on a on-line flight simulation game; the later company manager(s) screwed that up to contraversly kick out the maniac hardcore customers, who were major one in the game before. and they moved to a new one that had the initiative sprit-very hard and realistic-developed by the same person who packed up together at the moment.

As far as i experiecned by now, this type of game and the very MTW and RTW doesn't like kid(forgive me). and kid(sorry) doesn't like this historical fact based war simulation game. and on some fan-sites, i checked not a few ppl dicussing the game historical accuracy and stratigical analysis almost every day. they even made a new story, their own histories, and uploaded up on the sites. and i think this type of ppl consists of the game major customer.

d3v
7th Jan 2005, 23:59
Edit your post after you've sobered up.

Grey Mouser
8th Jan 2005, 00:03
Originally posted by d3v
I'll refrain from bad language but its not just my opinion... its the truth... unfortunatly:(



If you noticed, no-one here has said your OPINION is not welcome...(though I find it odd to have an opinion or any facts about a game you have never played, due to it having not been released yet...always good to actually know what you speak of before declaring that something sucks...just my opinion).

At any rate, this is a gaming forum, and is meant for gamers to express themselves...rationally, and without swearing. Do that and all will be fine.
GM

d3v
8th Jan 2005, 00:14
I understand and also, I appreciate your patience and kindness for not banning me already. Most boards would...

I am frustraited and angry becuase not only has the greatest large-scale RTS series ended (Total War) with the release of Rome: Total ****e but this game can so easily be the game all us starategy loers have been waiting for but it will not, simply becuase the majority of the market wont buy it:mad:

They could so easily make Imperial Glory what we want it to be....

Grey Mouser
8th Jan 2005, 00:34
Originally posted by d3v
I understand and also, I appreciate your patience and kindness for not banning me already. Most boards would...

I am frustraited and angry becuase not only has the greatest large-scale RTS series ended (Total War) with the release of Rome: Total ****e but this game can so easily be the game all us starategy loers have been waiting for but it will not, simply becuase the majority of the market wont buy it:mad:

They could so easily make Imperial Glory what we want it to be....

We never ban unless there is no other recourse...we actually like to hear from gamers.

I know for a fact that members of the development team read this board...I hope that your suggestions are taken to heart and implemented. We'll see, when the game ships. Plenty of time before that happens. And by all means, if you, or any one else has good suggestions, things you would like to see, things that you don't want to see...please feel free to post your suggestions here.

I'm not a developer, and make no promises whatsoever...but I do try and make sure that they listen to the gamers who play the games...usually this helps to make a better game.
GM

The_Russian_Rocket
8th Jan 2005, 00:54
If I hate any type of people in the world, it’s people who ASSUME. Your ASSUMING is making me and others furious. Please, if you are not interested in this game, LEAVE.

We are all brought to these forums for INTERST in the game and time period. Not to try to get others to go our way.

~The Russian

d3v
8th Jan 2005, 01:33
Its more than an assumtion, its going by what 99% of large scale RTW games turn out to be...

All I suggest is that the developers and publisher make this game what it can so easily be....

Theres no stopping them making IG a 110% realistic, hostorically accurate highly advanced, highly depthfull and varied combat system but they wont do it, not even close to it becuase they no they will only be attracting a very small percentage of the market....

Its the same with RTW, there was no roadblock in them making the game absolutely perfect but they dumbed it down deliberatly to make it appeal to the majority of the market, it has worked but they have lost their community but they woulent care as long as they get their money.

I know if I were a developer and had a development team under my command, i'd put the game first and money after. I'd create something that would exceed the highest standards 10 fold and theres no doubt alot, if not all developers are the same but its the evil publishers that stop them from doing it :rolleyes:

haradrim
8th Jan 2005, 03:27
Okay i just read through the whole thread in which you have done nothing but critcized a game that does not get released until Q3 2005(or at least that is the projected date) and have used unecessary language to emphasize your point. You have been told repeatedly to stop your sailor-like tyrades.
example:
"this game is going to be horrible because my 9-year experience with gaming tells me every game ever made except for MTW and STW will be devoid of any realistic significance whatsoever because lowering the curve makes money yadayadayada."

Stop that right now their has been no constructive critisism in your posts at all(and if i may add they all sound the same) and if you have a problem with the game thats fine with me but maybe instead of being a jerk about it try to find some way to see how maybe the game can be improved. Then maybe people will listen to you and even back you up on it. So in conclusion stop being acting like a two year old and write posts that people can do something with and maybe you wont get the moderator and a dozen other forumers angry at you.

regards

haradrim

d3v
8th Jan 2005, 09:57
Well I can think of an endless lit to make the game perfect, so has many of us can but whats the point?

Anything remotly hardcore or advanced will be ripped out for the sake of a more basic gameplay with a smaller learning curve.

I'd like an advanced morale system like MTW''s that takes a dozen varibles into consideration for each unit such as weather or not friendly units are close by, how good fighters are they? Knights? Peasats? Will friendly units being shot or attacked nearby cause a morale hit to units nearby and of course, the unit being shot/attacked?

Will the presence of weaker enemy forces give a morale boost?

Will the general give a morale boost to troops that can see him?

Will lesser quality troops get a morale boost with the rpesence of a kick-arse unit?

Will morale increase in a unit that is witnessing the slaughter of an enemy unit? I know if I were there, i'd be alot more confident ;)

As you can see, morale iset just 1 or 2 simple varibles... Its many and the more you add, the deeper and more realistic the game will be. Ohh and it will be a hell of alot more replayability becuase at the end of the day, it all adds up to a very, very unpredictable game thats very realistic and strategical.

I'd like an advnced projectile system where weather, windage, individual soldier fatigue, geomatry, brightness, smoke/fog, bushs/shrubs/trees/hedges, morale, fear, ECT ECT ECT, all take an effect on that units aiming ability.

Of course, morale should take an effect too.

You might not know but during this era, if the lesser experianced/quality troops were not so confident, they useually dident give it their best when it came to the bayo advance and stuff from lack of confidence so morale should take an effect on them to show this.

I'd like an advanced movment system where if another unit has to wlak through another, the unit that is being walked through, must re-form themselves to enables space btween them so the unit that wants to walk through then, can do so. Yes its small but with this type of game, you must understand that its the very small things that make it great.

Also get the impacts of clashing units right too.

RTW did a pretty good job but could of made it better. It lacks any sense of power and impact.

If they added all of that, along with nice aniamtions, historically accurate formations, ways of moving, uniforms, weapon reload times, ect, ect, ect then the game will achieve the desire of so many of us here.

These might look very small and insignificant but they do many things to make th game better...

More realistic
More strategy and tactics to take into consideration
Steeper learning curve = more rewarding
Years of playability due to the unpredictability these suggestions would bring to the game.

Why do you think people could play STW and MTW for 2 solid years without getting bored with it?

Well becuase its developers put all of these things i've suggested and more. It made the game re-playable even after eyars of playing it cos you never ever could fully understand the game and so it never grew old and stale on you if you know what I mean....

haradrim
8th Jan 2005, 17:03
first off i would like to thank you for changing your last post to helpful suggestions, hopefully with the help of the community we can help shape this game into an rts with deep strategical elements and make it as historically accurate as we can w/o confusing the newer players. I understand your worry about making this game too simplistic it is a concern of mine as well, but hopefully if eidos realizes that a large percentage of their target audience strives for a realistic game they will hopefully make this game into one. I agree with you that morale is based on multiple variables and i think that would make the game much more interesting as well, and if that increases the learning curve so what? The feeling of finaly getting used to the game and learning realistic strategy will be much more rewarding than being able to master the game in 30 minutes because all you have to do is:
1. create base
2. build massive army and set the rally point on enemy's base
3. repeat step 2 until enemy is defeated
unfortunately their are far too many rts games that use this strategy such as cossacks(though cossacks can be blast if you are not playing against someone who does that).
hopefully IG will be a game full of deep battlefield and diplomatic strategy.
also a MP campaign mode would be an addition to the game that would greatly increase the replayability.
The greatest challenge is to balance the game to provide enough strategical depth to satisfy the vets while at the same time not scaring of those new to the genre. Though from my understanding you can delegate different parts of the game to the ai which may make it more appealing to a larger audience.

BlackCoat
8th Jan 2005, 17:09
I sure wouldnt want to see a micromanagement clickfeast..

Czar
9th Jan 2005, 06:09
Thank you d3v for swearing less:

And I would like to say that I agree with your general point :eek: :)

Also [BlackBirdy] in another thread.

It concerns me that Pyro and Eidos seem to be designing a game that no-one will want.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think the game looks great in many ways and I think it has tons of potential but many players seem to be saying "we want to be able to do this..." and the answer seems to be NO :(

For those that don't like what d3v is saying in bringing up RTW. Consider that IG is aiming at much the same market (customers) and so they would be well advised to see what customers did (and didn't) like about the TW series.

Now I know what I want from this game - or rather I can see the potential for two totally different games here - and so far, from what I have read IG does not do either.
Either small unit and naval actions around the world (including naval bombardment of shore installations) OR large fleet and army actions in Europe {Edit: And imagine if it could do BOTH!!!! :D}

Now maybe I am wrong (probably:o ) but I think it would be a good idea for Pyro and Eidos to find out.

So I say again: Pyro, Eidos - consider a public Beta and or Demo now .

That gives you a ton of time to study feedback and make changes.

Also, since my last post on this subject I have installed yet another 'professionally' tested game (Sid Meier's Pirates) to find some very major issues (does not run with my soundcard, CTDs and game freezes).

Please, please, please Pyro - at least release a demo so your customers can give you some feedback before you 'go gold' while you can still make changes?

d3v
9th Jan 2005, 12:57
They wont create the game based on a small percentage of the potential market which is those of us who long for a highly realistic strategy game.

They will make it dumb and fast paced and more action orientated like CA/Activision did with RTW which ruined the TW series...

Its a horrible situation becuase it basicly means that high-stratgy realistic games will be few and far apart simply becuase the majority of the market are useless idiots that just want to see killing and explosions and dont give a toss about anything else.

Arctic_Wolf
9th Jan 2005, 22:14
Originally posted by d3v
the majority of the market are useless idiots that just want to see killing and explosions and dont give a toss about anything else.

Why is what you want more important than what they want?

Czar
9th Jan 2005, 23:15
Originally posted by d3v
They wont create the game based on a small percentage of the potential market which is those of us who long for a highly realistic strategy game.
...
Its a horrible situation becuase it basicly means that high-stratgy realistic games will be few and far apart simply becuase the majority of the market are useless idiots that just want to see killing and explosions and dont give a toss about anything else.

Er, sorry but I don't agree with that.

The fact is that a small percentage of a very large market is potentially profitable.:)

Also, because in depth strategy games are now so rare the ones that do get released (and are any good) are quickly snapped up by hungry consumers.:D

Then again the bad ones (MoO3??) tend to earn really bad reputations. RTW also did really well - people didn't even wait for reviews. Why would they? It's not like there was any real opposition.:rolleyes:

d3v
10th Jan 2005, 00:01
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
Why is what you want more important than what they want?

I never said it was :rolleyes:


Originally posted by
Czar Er, sorry but I don't agree with that.

The fact is that a small percentage of a very large market is potentially profitable.

Also, because in depth strategy games are now so rare the ones that do get released (and are any good) are quickly snapped up by hungry consumers.

Then again the bad ones (MoO3??) tend to earn really bad reputations. RTW also did really well - people didn't even wait for reviews. Why would they? It's not like there was any real opposition.

What?

Czar
10th Jan 2005, 02:18
Originally posted by d3v
...

What? [/B]


What: that I don't agree with you?

What: that a small percentage of a huge market is still a big market?

What: that MoO3 was crap?

What: that there is no real alternative to the Total War Series at the moment?

What what? :p ;) :D

Arctic_Wolf
10th Jan 2005, 22:36
Originally posted by d3v
I never said it was

No I suppose you didn't, but if the majority of the market want game x, and you want game y, why are you making such a fuss. Our society works mostly on the princible that what the majority want the majority get. The only explanation that I can see that you are so angry that the majority are getting what the majority wants is if you believe that your minority is more important.

Now, I am a part of your minority, strategy first right? but I have yet to see any good evidence that the strategy in IG will be dumbed down, all I can see is that you are saying IG will be dumbed down because R:TW says and that's just wrong.

Mr. C.
10th Jan 2005, 22:55
I also love realism in a game which is one reason I got turned off to MTW after awhile. First of all I didn't care for the "one year" turn periods. It doesn't take a whole year to go from one province to a neighboring one.

Also, to take a huge army all the way from Norway to Egypt in one turn just because you have ships in each zone is again unrealistic; and then if just ONE enemy ship is in that zone, which represents a HUGE area of sea, then the WHOLE sea zone is blockaded. Again, totally unrealistic. That was one of the things I liked about EU, you actually boarded troops onto A ship that had to have the proper space for it, and then the troops suffered attrition if they were on board for long periods of time. You then sent THAT ship, or fleet of ships, to your destination. The thing I didn't like about EU was the battle resolutions :( Battle resolutions were what I liked about MTW.

Another thing I don't like about every strategy game I've seen so far is constructing buildings. You shouldn't be constrained to constructing only one building or city improvement at a time. If you have the money and workers, you should be able to start building as many as you can afford. THAT should be something they could program in. Naturally improvements to a structure should have to wait, but you should be able to build a barracks, stables, roads, etc. simultaneously if you desire. I know AofE has this but I don't like the unrealistic country format, plus time passage is meaningless in that game, which it can't be in a more realistic game.

The promising features of IG are that they HAVE sea battles which look fantastic to me, plus the land battle videos look great as well.

The one thing I can SEE at this point that I don't like is the countries' boundaries. They don't seem to correspond accurately to actual maps of that period. They look to "RISK" like to me. Also I really am hoping that they will create the ACTUAL province shapes and not divide each country into just a few arbitrary provinces that you can conquer.

Basically what I'd like to see is:

1.More realistic city management (which I've detailed above).

2. Accurate mapping of the countries (which it doesn't look like is the case at this point).

3. Accurate diplomatic capabilities (Diplomacy is sooooo important in reality, especially in the Napoleonic era) Relations could be improved by trade agreements, royal marriages, royal visits to foreign countries, loans, defense agreements, ect. A graph of some kind could be presented in the diplomacy window that could show how you're doing in relations with diff. countries. These are features I remember from an old strategy game called "Imperialism" from SSI. You could actually develope resources in a minor nation after buying those resources (after first investing in a trade agreement and than building an embassy) and get profit from them. I really loved that feature because it is exactly what was done.

4. PLUS, THE DEVELOPERS COULD MAKE IT SO THAT PLAYERS CAN TOGGLE OFF THE MORE ADVANCED OPTIONS THAT WE SERIOUS GAMERS WOULD LOVE TO PLAY. YOU COULD HAVE A SIMPLE BUILD AND CONQUER GAME WITHOUT TROOP MORALE, DIPLOMACY, AND CITY MANAGEMENT, BUT ALSO HAVE ALL THESE ADVANCED OPTIONS AS WELL; AT THE MERE CLICK OR TWO OF A MOUSE.

EIDOS COULD HAVE ITS CAKE AND EAT IT TOO! THEY WOULD APPEAL TO THE WHOLE SPECTRUM OF GAMERS, FROM THE LESS SERIOUS TO THE ULTRA SERIOUS. THE GAME TO ME, FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN IN SCREEN SHOTS AND VIDEOS CAN DO THIS BECAUSE IT IS SO DARN VISUALLY APPEALING!

DEVELOPERS! PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT I'M SAYING! I LOVE THE NAPOLEONIC ERA AND HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS FOR SOMEONE TO DEVELOPE THE KIND OF GAME THAT IT SEEMS EIDOS IS ON THE VERGE OF CREATING! :D

d3v
11th Jan 2005, 00:28
Originally posted by Arctic_Wolf
No I suppose you didn't, but if the majority of the market want game x, and you want game y, why are you making such a fuss. Our society works mostly on the princible that what the majority want the majority get. The only explanation that I can see that you are so angry that the majority are getting what the majority wants is if you believe that your minority is more important.

Now, I am a part of your minority, strategy first right? but I have yet to see any good evidence that the strategy in IG will be dumbed down, all I can see is that you are saying IG will be dumbed down because R:TW says and that's just wrong.

Well I never said either party is more important than the other.

I'm simply fuming becuase yet again, they are turning a potentially great game that could EASILY surpass the realism and depth and epic strategy that STW and MTW had twice over.

Arctic_Wolf
11th Jan 2005, 01:11
Then I adress you to my second point, beyond the fact that you believe R:TW has done it what makes you think IG is sacrificing its strategy?

The_Russian_Rocket
11th Jan 2005, 01:34
I seriously think you don't know what you are talking about. In fact, none of us do because no of us have ever played the game. I don't know how you know all this stuff this early on the development! Give me a link to the site all this stuff is on!


Originally posted by d3v
I'm simply fuming becuase yet again, they are turning a potentially great game that could EASILY surpass the realism and depth and epic strategy that STW and MTW had twice over.
How do you know?


Originally posted by d3v
Imperial Glory will be a good game but I can tell you right now that it will not fullfill our desires for another large-scale RTS with the realism and level of strategy and depth STW and MTW had........
How do you know?

d3v
11th Jan 2005, 09:09
Several reasons why I know this game will turn out to be a shallow POS...

The trailer looks wayy too arcadish and pretty unrealistic in the way lines fire when friendly lines are infront.

Most games have always deliberatly dumbed down the strategy and depth to make it appeal to mass market. RTW is a good example... There was no roadblock for Activision or Creative Assembly to make RTW surpass the greatness of STW and MTW by far in terms of depth, strategy, tactical, ect, ect... It's blindingly obvious they diliberatly pissed on their fans to please a wider audience which in turn, gives them more money and may I say they have actually lost there proper fan base and community becuase of RTW...

What percentage of the gaming population would prefer a game like MTW to a game like Dawn of War?

Too many people just like to select, click, see the fight and move on.

We that love the depth and strategy are a minority and therfore, we must endure the sea of shallow **** that spews out daily from the gaming industry...

BattleKnight
11th Jan 2005, 10:03
You're right d3v. A lot of people like 'simple' RTS more than a true complex one. But those simple RTS games can be a lot of fun though, especially because it doesn't take ages to finish a match or a campaign. University students (like myself) don't have a lot of time.

But, lets see how the game turns out, okay? I too noticed the lines mingling with eachother just to get a shot at the enemy. I also hope that this game isn't dumbed down. But, the game isn't finished yet and they are polishing it, so, alot can happen in a few months.

Meanwhile, have you tried the NTW mod for MTW? Keeps me busy for the moment. :)

d3v
11th Jan 2005, 11:27
But those simple RTS games can be a lot of fun though

I cant stand them, lol.

Yeah I tried NTW, it was pretty good but not good enough to play it regulary.

Arctic_Wolf
11th Jan 2005, 19:25
Originally posted by d3v
Most games have always deliberatly dumbed down the strategy and depth to make it appeal to mass market. RTW is a good example... There was no roadblock for Activision or Creative Assembly to make RTW surpass the greatness of STW and MTW by far in terms of depth, strategy, tactical, ect, ect... It's blindingly obvious they diliberatly pissed on their fans to please a wider audience which in turn, gives them more money and may I say they have actually lost there proper fan base and community becuase of RTW...

This is not a reason, this is your observation on R:TW. IG is not made by Creative Assembly or published by Activision.


Originally posted by d3v
What percentage of the gaming population would prefer a game like MTW to a game like Dawn of War?

Again this is not a reason, this is another of your observations. Anyway what do you have against Dawn of War? Just because its a Base Builder RTS doesn't mean it has no strategy.


Originally posted by d3v
Too many people just like to select, click, see the fight and move on.

How do you know, have you asked them? And what does it have to do with IG?


Originally posted by d3v
We that love the depth and strategy are a minority and therfore, we must endure the sea of shallow **** that spews out daily from the gaming industry...

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're crap. I for e.g enjoy many of the games you label sell-outs and crap for not having much strategy and I also enjoy games with much great strategical depth that could accuse your holy Halcion games of the same. Just because they aren't your cup of tea doesn't mean that they aren't worthy to be cups of tea.


Originally posted by d3v
The trailer looks wayy too arcadish and pretty unrealistic in the way lines fire when friendly lines are infront.

So is that it? The video trailer? Your entire bloody tirade about how bad you think the game will be is based entirely on one single not-even-in-game-footage-video! Dear god, man!

The video is no where near an idication of the final game, that was only to show off their graphics and technical ability, the game is still being chopped, changed and tweaked and will continue like that until it goes Gold. If the you truly have nine years experience with the games industry, not just playing them, you should know by now that footage of a game that hasn't gone Gold is not a reliable source of its final performance, doubly so if it still has at the very least 6months to go.

Your entire argument is flawed.

the zwickau prophet
11th Jan 2005, 23:25
I love the Total War series but as has been pointed out on this thread several times (with no real response from d3v), none of them (including STW and MTW) have the strategic depth of a game like Europa Universalis 2. They may have a certain degree of tactical depth but that is a different matter. I for one, much as I love it, would not describe STW as being a particularly deep strategy game. As for Imperial Glory, how can anyone tell what sort of game it will be before it is released. Trailers do not make a game. As I lean more towards the grand strategy of the campaign map, I am always more interested in how such games play out in terms of economics, diplomacy etc, rather than the mechanics of flanking etc on the battlefield. But hey, that is just my opinion. I am still looking forward to IG, as it definately seems to have a Total War approach and I have long waited for a Total War Game set in the Napoleonic period (the MTW mod did not really do anything for me)

d3v
12th Jan 2005, 00:31
lets get something straight.

I'm reffering to the battle system, not the diplomatic/political/finacial, ect, ect side of the game.

"Whats wrong with Dawn of War"

Everything about it unless you dont mind a shallo game with a minimalistic strategical and tactical system with the minimal variables and stuff :rolleyes:

"STW and MTW not a very realistic/strategical/depthfull game"

I hope your only referring to the campaign side of the game and not the battle system becuase if you are. Your wrong. But I do agree that the campaign side of STW, MTW and RTW is an absolute pile of shallow stinknig crap thats not worth your time.

"How do you know the majority of the gaming community prefer pick-up-and-play strategic-less shallow games instead of highly detailed realsitic games"

You may not of noticed but the majority of the market are people that will most likely never even join a game forum.

There just people that want a quick bout of gaming in-between there redicuously stressfull and free-timeless lives and have no time, nevermind INTEREST or desire to take strategy and stuff onboard while playing the game.

Like I said, most of the market prefer DoW crap where u point and click, see who wins, then move on with no variables or realism whatsoever.

Most who actually register with games forums, i.e this one, are people who belong to the minority who enjoy strategical high-detailed gameplay, not all, but most.

Now all that evidence ontop of the fact that nearly everysingle game of this type has swung to the majority equals more than enough proof that IG will 99% proably be no differant to them...

Mr. C.
12th Jan 2005, 05:00
Originally posted by d3v


There just people that want a quick bout of gaming in-between there redicuously stressfull and free-timeless lives and have no time, nevermind INTEREST or desire to take strategy and stuff onboard while playing the game.



Which doesn't make them lesser human beings for all that.

You know, I can understand your frustration. I enjoy realism in a game. Not just battle realism, which is what you seem more concerned with, but overall strategic and tactical realism. It just hasn't been out there yet. I'm hoping that IG will at least be closer to my "ideal" of the perfect game. It at least covers one of my favorite time periods which is a big plus:D

I'm not a software engineer so I don't know exactly what's involved in writing a game but I know a concern is whether most of the computers out there can handle the programs. Is there some computer guru out there that can explain all that? Is it a matter of having a really complicated program that could be done but would just take more work (and therefore be more costly)? I really have no idea. :confused:

Czar
12th Jan 2005, 09:42
Originally posted by d3v
lets get something straight.

I'm reffering to the battle system, not the diplomatic/political/finacial, ect, ect side of the game.

Well, EU and EU2 are not for everyone. I am a Paradox fan - but there are times I just want to 'point and click' too. Which brings me to



"Whats wrong with Dawn of War"

Everything about it unless you dont mind a shallo game with a minimalistic strategical and tactical system with the minimal variables and stuff :rolleyes:

Actually DoW was / is one of the slickest games on the market right now IMHO.
Strategy? NO. No arguement there. Tactics? Actually - the squad based system does allow you to play Tactically and even to take cover! (Could have taken that further IMHO)
Minimal Variables? Actually - the number of different races makes this not true either - it was very well balanced.

And the final thing Something I hope Pyro and Eidos will note : very few bugs and good game play!
Why? Public Beta Testing
Allowed them to really give the game a good work out prior to retail release. (See also Paradox's Hearts of Iron 2)

Sure DoW is not for everyone - but it was aimed at a specific market and it did an excellent job there.


"STW and MTW not a very realistic/strategical/depthfull game"

I hope your only referring to the campaign side of the game and not the battle system becuase if you are. Your wrong. But I do agree that the campaign side of STW, MTW and RTW is an absolute pile of shallow stinknig crap thats not worth your time.
The battle system was groundbreaking - but could be developed further.
The Strategy system lacked in some areas but was a good start.

The IG system looks (from screenshots) to have something in common with MTW. That is not a bad thing. I actually preferred this in many ways to RTW - but that is just me. :rolleyes:



...

Now all that evidence ontop of the fact that nearly everysingle game of this type has swung to the majority equals more than enough proof that IG will 99% proably be no differant to them... [/B]

Umm, d3v?

'evidence' = proof

What you gave was your opinion.

It seems you want more mircomanagement? Well, in that case you will probably be disappointed because (as you point out) most people don't - and games are aimed at the 'majority'.

But there is also the fact that events wich alter history can often be minute (the butterfly flaps its wings and causes a hurricane on the other side of the world?)
I doubt we will every see a really in depth and realistic strategy game in our lifetimes (there simply is not the computing power available yet)
So we must settle for the best approximation.

As for IG - don't expect too much.
We already know the designers have made a decision to 'simplify the world'. No Americas for a start.
I am disappointed too.
But, lets do what we can to see if we can convince them to change their minds?

Personally, I will accept the view of the majority. But right now we don't know what that majority is?
The only way we will know IMHO is to test the waters - a demo.
Get feedback and see.
Then we will all actually know what we are talking about.
Right now we are simply guessing at content. :(

Oh, Mr C?

I know a concern is whether most of the computers out there can handle the programs. Is there some computer guru out there that can explain all that? Is it a matter of having a really complicated program that could be done but would just take more work (and therefore be more costly)? I really have no idea.
Another good reason for a public beta or demo - that is how you find out.

d3v
12th Jan 2005, 15:21
What the hell are you talking about? Since when did I say people who disagree with me are lesser human beings:rolleyes:

Also, I dont want micro-mangament, I and alot of other here just want a combat system that is on par or exceeds that of MTW's.

You've played MTW. Did you have to micro-manage? No you dident.

(I'm referring to the combat system here, okay)

An advanced realsitic combat system does NOT have to come with micro-management. AS PROVED BY MTW.

YOu also do not know what I mean by variables.

Variables are very small "things" that can influence the game alot.

For example a morale system can have as many variables as you like. The more the better and more realsiitc.

Look at my topic I made called "Advanced morale system" and you'll see what variables are.

There not "features" of a game like how many races and weapons there are like you obviously think :rolleyes:

Mr. C.
12th Jan 2005, 20:56
Originally posted by d3v

YOu also do not know what I mean by variables.

Variables are very small "things" that can influence the game alot.

For example a morale system can have as many variables as you like. The more the better and more realsiitc.

Look at my topic I made called "Advanced morale system" and you'll see what variables are.

There not "features" of a game like how many races and weapons there are like you obviously think :rolleyes:

Believe it or not I do happen to know what variables are. I've been playing video games since before your parents probably even met ( I saw your birth-date in your bio) :rolleyes: I also happen to be a teacher, and by the way, you need to work on your "They're, their and there."

You should have written the contraction "they're not features" not "there not . . ."

Whether your aware of it or not some of your remarks come off as a bit disparaging of other gamers. I don't think I'm the only one to pick up on that. Maybe you didn't mean it to come out that way but it did, at least to me.

If you're so sick of the rotten games out there, then you should start developing your own games. It sounds like you'ld make the kinds I like. I'd definitely buy them and wish you the best of luck. :)

Maximus Decimus
13th Jan 2005, 04:34
d3v:

If you want anyone to take you seriously you are going to have to start by acting civil and professional. You also FAIL to provide evidence to support your complaints regarding this game or Dawn of War. "Everything" is not an answer but a rather childish excuse. Once you write a comprehensive report on the failure or flaws of said features we will be able to take you seriously. Quite frankly we could care less how much you hate this game because regiments fire their rounds with friendly soldiers in front of them. Once again you fail to provide sufficient evidence and most of your ranting is "this game sucks because I said so". When asked for more proof you repeat the same one or two observations/assumptions.


I'm simply fuming becuase yet again, they are turning a potentially great game that could EASILY surpass the realism and depth and epic strategy that STW and MTW had twice over.

I want a highly unrealistic game; I want my commander to drive a Ferrari. Let me start a three-page thread about how this game is going to be so horrible because my commander will not be driving a Ferrari.

OR

We must have Realism!

- Realistic uniform colours (you will have a hard time distinguishing friendly forces from enemy forces)
- You must estimate distance for cannons before firing.
- Soldiers must take a minute to reload their weapons. The less skilled will take longer.
- Your soldiers must eat in order to stay alive
- You must set up a camp before battle.
- Take hours/days/weeks(real time) to march to different lands(what is all this "warping", its highly unrealistic! I want to march my troops!)
- You must manage all economical aspects of a real campaign.
- You must set aside time for your soldiers so they can sleep, write letters home, etc.
- As the general you of course must observe all this, sleep, write letters home and feed yourself because it would be unrealistic to be looking at a map the entire time.
- The general must also submit reports to the government, which the player must write.
- You must run soldiers through drills.

I hate this game because none of the above will be included, why? Well the developer and publisher want to make some money.

Do you see how unreasonable you are? Suggestions would help but what you are doing is worthless. You don't like the game; we get it, move on to another game and leave us alone.

Czar
13th Jan 2005, 06:22
Look d3v - I am happy to discuss this issue with you (as I think buried under the stuff you say are some valid arguments (I am partly agreeing with you!)
But please, lets stay civil?


Originally posted by d3v
What the hell are you talking about? Since when did I say people who disagree with me are lesser human beings:rolleyes:

Actually, that was nothing to do with me and Mr C. didn't say that either. He just said "each to their own." It's good etiquette to say whom you are referring to BTW.

{Side note to MR C: Maybe d3v is not an english as first language speaker? Not really fair to pick him up on 'their', 'there' and 'they're' - hey, I still kant spel goud! ;) }



Also, I dont want micro-mangament, I and alot of other here just want a combat system that is on par or exceeds that of MTW's.

You've played MTW. Did you have to micro-manage? No you dident.

(I'm referring to the combat system here, okay)

An advanced realsitic combat system does NOT have to come with micro-management. AS PROVED BY MTW.

OK. My misunderstanding - I was referring to the strategy part of the game. Someone said EU and I got all confused!



YOu also do not know what I mean by variables.

Variables are very small "things" that can influence the game alot.

For example a morale system can have as many variables as you like. The more the better and more realsiitc.

Look at my topic I made called "Advanced morale system" and you'll see what variables are.

There not "features" of a game like how many races and weapons there are like you obviously think :rolleyes: [/B]

Actually, another misunderstanding. I have experience with programming and VARIABLE in programming is different to feature or environment.
(And just so you know: the 'variables' (programming type) in DoW might be RANGE=300 for space marine bolter but RANGE=250 for space marine heavy bolter...that's what I thought you meant)

We were talking about different things.

I read your "Advanced morale system" post and actually thought it was quite interesting.

The thing is the designers have to decide how many of your variables the player can influence, because from the programmers point of view having a ton of variables that need to be worked in is a pain in the...
So, a compromise is reached: Only the things the player can influence are factored in individually.
You actually did a good job with your "Advanced morale system" of highlighting these things.

But also - the programmers must consider extreme cases and whether a combination of all these things may cause unforseen results.

But look: There is no way in eternity you will be able to influence that part of the development process. In fact, with a tentative release set at Q3, 2005 I actually doubt there is very much anybody can do to change the final product at this stage.
:rolleyes:

The only thing that might change the final product is if IG is somehow trialled (now) and bombs badly.

But - with a demo that may be released about the time the game goes gold I think that is unlikely too. IG will be whatever the designers want it to be. If it succeeds - great! If not - they will probably learn, go bankrupt, and move on... :(

Mr. C.
13th Jan 2005, 13:36
Originally posted by Czar


{Side note to MR C: Maybe d3v is not an english as first language speaker? Not really fair to pick him up on 'their', 'there' and 'they're' - hey, I still kant spel goud! ;) }



That's the teacher coming out in me :) can't always control it, though I do have an idea that d3v is a native english speaker. Could be wrong though. :p

d3v
13th Jan 2005, 15:45
yeah I am and i'm not the best of spllers but I'm better when it matters, i.e when something depends on good spelling such as writing up a CV or exams n' **** like that...

as long as you can understand what i'm saying, it dosent matter.

BattleKnight
13th Jan 2005, 22:09
Originally posted by Maximus Decimus


We must have Realism!

- Realistic uniform colours (you will have a hard time distinguishing friendly forces from enemy forces)
- You must estimate distance for cannons before firing.
- Soldiers must take a minute to reload their weapons. The less skilled will take longer.
- Your soldiers must eat in order to stay alive
- You must set up a camp before battle.
- Take hours/days/weeks(real time) to march to different lands(what is all this "warping", its highly unrealistic! I want to march my troops!)
- You must manage all economical aspects of a real campaign.
- You must set aside time for your soldiers so they can sleep, write letters home, etc.
- As the general you of course must observe all this, sleep, write letters home and feed yourself because it would be unrealistic to be looking at a map the entire time.
- The general must also submit reports to the government, which the player must write.
- You must run soldiers through drills.



You know, those things didn't sound too bad. I know, it would take ages to play a game, but still ... I'm intrigued by this. Too bad no developer will even think about those things ... :(

haradrim
13th Jan 2005, 23:00
your probably right that no dev. would touch it but its a great idea and the thought of a game like that makes me drool. the only way a game like that would come about would be if you could fast forward some of the more tedious parts of the game. Take marching for example it would be fun for a little while but having to spend a whole day just to march into battle would be extremely boring(for those of you that have played mafia you will remember the tedium of having to drive to all your missions. Maybe thats just me but i was a horrible driver so my guy would die or get arrested for speeding before i even got to the mission:( ). All we need for a gem like this be released is a dev. that doesnt care about making millions(like thats gonna happen) and instead concentrate its efforts on creating a work of art that will be played by a small devout community. Im not saying its going to happen becuase it is defenitely not happening in the near future just telling a dream of mine that hopefully will become a reality before i die.

ciao

d3v
14th Jan 2005, 00:29
A highly realistic combat game does not have to come with some crap about watching your armies march from A to B.

Nor does any "boring" element have to be included.

Maximus Decimus
14th Jan 2005, 01:13
I believed you missed my point with that D3v, which was:


Do you see how unreasonable you are? Suggestions would help but what you are doing is worthless. You don't like the game; we get it, move on to another game and leave us alone.

The way you have been acting is unappropriate and very wasteful. Once again, suggestions are welcome but an entire change of direction because a very small minority wishes it is unreasonable, especially if you try to communicate this by slamming the game and rant about whatever features you assume it will have. I suggest you change your direction or take the advice above.

I knew D3v was english as soon as he started using "l337" language with the "u"s and numerous other "l337" abbreviations in his earlier posts.

DOUBLE POST


does not have to come with some crap about watching your armies march from A to B.

What if I wish it? You seem to demand a change of direction because you want features put in place that most of us wouldn't miss.

MagyarKhans Cham
14th Jan 2005, 13:39
well for fans of the online experience of STW and MTW I do not have to introduce myself.

for others, im the Great Khans messenger. www.clan-wolves.com is teh home of teh wolves.

as my Khan as won more TW related prices in and outside competitions and played more battles than anyone ever will I can safely say he is Total War. So a short sumup of his findings are:

STW and STW MI is a very good tactical warfare game
personal taste but atmosphere of japanese era is unrivaled.
after a patch and a mod teh games were very balanced. excellent for online competitions and ensured teh longlivity of teh game.

MTW and VI, dozens of new units were added in teh same engine.
but balance was highly reduced. after a patch and a lot of whinig some balance was restored. The GUI was probably a bit better than stw.

than RTW was released. this game is clearly dumbed down for most common people (=mass market). and eye candy added by teh 3d engine.
till now the online community waits for a playable patch.... many months have passed. unless you dont have any reference of teh TW series u will notice the game is unplayable online.

most important teh devs of IG should learn from this

be sure the gameplay ensures tactical warfare and aim for teh highest possible standard
be sure online play is cheatfree, fun and easy to get a battle
be sure u have a good and dedicated patching policy.

perhaps to add but this is enough so far. maybe one day our Khan will move his high horse in here.

HoooooooooooooooWl

Czar
14th Jan 2005, 13:52
:rolleyes:

Hey! look! It's another one of them dog boys! (friendly joke)

Welcome to the forum MagyarKhans Cham

I agree with you. I want a good land AND naval Multiplayer so we can see if Wolves can captain a ship at sea?

I was disapointed with RTW when I found two CTDs in the first 24hrs of gameplay (single player).

One was a carry over from MTW (Still not fixed:mad: ) and one was something that any 'professional beta tester' should have trialed at the top of the list.

We all hope for more with IG.

Customer Support is where it is at.:)

cliss
25th Jan 2005, 11:30
Hey guys unfortunatly as been pointed out that the big comanies have to make a profit so some realism goes to make it playable? i think some times these companies underestimate the general public who many are looking for more of an indepth game have any of you visted Histwar do a search he is a french guy puting a huge game together all correct with a superb comand system go have a look

Czar
25th Jan 2005, 15:12
... i think some times these companies underestimate the general public who many are looking for more of an indepth game ...

Also see the amazing success of Paradox'es Hearts of Iron 2
It was sold out in the USA with people crossing borders to buy it as I understand it.

Seems ATARI didn't think a complex Grand Strategy game would sell? :rolleyes:
Seems ATARI didn't think. ;)

jaywalker2309
30th Jan 2005, 19:32
I'll refrain from bad language but its not just my opinion... its the truth... unfortunatly:(

Unless the majority of the market evolve from wanting pick-up-and-play games where you can learn instantly or very quickly, we will not ever see another STW/MTW :mad:

We will see games such as this that have basic strategical and tactical features and systems such as a morale and weather feature but they will always be very basic and we wont ever get a full on proper large-scale war game likw we got with STW and MTW... the majority simply prefer dumb games:rolleyes:

Until you have played the game please dont make statements claiming to be `truthful` when you have no experience of the game to back them up.

I've been a strategy nut for over a decade, and i personally found TW to be flawed, yes it tried to do many things, but the AI cheated constantly to give you a `challenge`. Thats not a good thing.

Anyways back to our game. Wait for a demo before you pass your `expert` opinion on it. Watching a movie trailer then deciding is kinda dumb.

Inferior Being
4th Feb 2005, 16:32
Well, well, well... *Sigh...* seems no-one mensioned the absolutely disgusting melees in the trailer, I'll have to write an eight pages long, not really that productive thread about it! :eek:

jaywalker2309
4th Feb 2005, 17:36
Well, well, well... *Sigh...* seems no-one mensioned the absolutely disgusting melees in the trailer, I'll have to write an eight pages long, not really that productive thread about it! :eek:

Again, dont comment on old footage, wait til you see it for yourself, or updated movies.

Inferior Being
4th Feb 2005, 17:52
Yes... you are quite right... forgive me.
But you've got to admit; they really WERE quite terrible. :o

BattleKnight
4th Feb 2005, 21:20
As long as the melee battles are better than the ones in Praetorians, I will be happy. Because those melees were way too chaotic.

Inferior Being
4th Feb 2005, 22:16
True! Plus it employs the same
:( anim over, and over, and over...!

Dread_lahll
8th Feb 2005, 00:44
You should keep in mind that the trailer shows what can only be extreem close ups (to show off the detail), go back and view some of the RTW trailers and screens, and then (assuming you have the game) play a custom battle and observe the distance at which you at which you watch and command your men. My own observation is that the distance is so great that the detail is lost.

jaywalker2309
8th Feb 2005, 01:00
You should keep in mind that the trailer shows what can only be extreem close ups (to show off the detail), go back and view some of the RTW trailers and screens, and then (assuming you have the game) play a custom battle and observe the distance at which you at which you watch and command your men. My own observation is that the distance is so great that the detail is lost.

You can get that low in game. You can go in very close to the action.

Mr. C.
10th Feb 2005, 22:02
It sounds like you must have to have a pretty good computer to play it then, what are we looking at for processing and memory, etc.?

vader146
16th Feb 2005, 00:08
Indeed it seems you'll need a beast of a machine to run this game well, what with the graphics and physics engine and whatnot. Still I was going to buy a new PC due to games like Half-Life 2 anyway.
Don't know the exact specs but I recon the GFX card will have to be at least GeForce4 and at that it'll look pretty turd. If you need a new PC check out; http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/

ToXS
16th Feb 2005, 12:52
My God, I hope we are all very much aware, that the game is not out yet? Because I also hope that the end result will not be equall to the support we "gamers" are throwing at it now.

You all remember the first time one saw "Gladiator", that film in itself was a bench mark for other movies to come. But if we all judge movies of that genre against "Gladiator", then noone would enjoy "Troy", "Alexander", "Master and Commander" etc.

My point isf all games have unique things about them, and its that uniqness that makes them so addictive. I must agree that this game has a little or TW/MTW/RTW about it, but so what? Fan or not, it will still we be interesting to play. And if not, then grab a book by Bernard Cornwell and read any of the Sharpe's stories, you will see...you will look forward to the game.


There is one thing that we all should fear in that whole money/sales/end product marketing thing. Its that they will rush the game, and it get released full of bugs and glitches.

So boys and girls lets stand behind them feed them POSITIVE ideas, and see what happens at the end. Cos I get the feeling even if some of you are right now and wrong later or vice versa....we will always have something to "*****" about ( sorry for the curse)
NOW LINE "HALT!" "PRESENT!".....

vader146
16th Feb 2005, 23:06
Well I'm really looking to this game as a substitute to Cossacks 2 which, although looks good, doesn't seem much different from the originals. Don't get me wrong I loved the originals but what pay for the same thing with slightly better graphics?
I think Imperial Glory looks like the actuall next generation of Cossacks and that's why I'm interested in it. Notbecause it looks like a Total War game.

Mastalerz
17th Feb 2005, 01:48
Alright, I only read the first page so give me a break. But here is my view on the topic. Games like WC3 and C&C sold a lot better than MTW, because they are quick, short, and fun. Strategy is still involved but on a different scale. And for god sakes quit using terms like "hardcore stategy games" or whatever the hell it was you said. MTW gets borring after about 2 hours of playing, its not "so in depth and realistic" you try to make it sound like a lot more than just a bunch of 2D pictures moving around with coded things inside them like calvary loses to spearmen. In games like WC3 and C&C unit a being stronger than unit b unit a wins, thats not like its unrealistic. If you were to play a ww2 game and sherman kills a king tiger thats anything but realistic. You havnt even played the game, all you have done was watch a trailer from when the game was first being developed. And your "hardcore pc gaming experience" cant judge a game by that, hell i dont even know what "hardcore pc gaming experience" is, and frankly I dont want to know sounds a little personal to me and I dont think your sexual preference should be discussed on this particular forum. Fact of the matter is, nobody listen to this guy, wait for the demo, then judge the game. I am anticipating a good battle stategy game.

colmde
17th Feb 2005, 14:51
I'm not sure I agree about why Warcraft 3 sold better...

Total War (before Rome anyway) may not have been as well-known as the 'Craft series... Between Warcraft & Starcraft, the games are fairly well publicised, whereas I (for one) never even heard of Shogun: Total War until I played Medieval.

I think with computer games - as with most things - all other things being equal, publicity is a powerful force.

All in all, anyone I know who has played both, much prefers a Total War game vs a comparable 'Craft game.

Also, the crafts probably have added mainstream appeal due to their cartoony nature. Also, the fact that there is a plot...

Mr. C.
17th Feb 2005, 20:27
So boys and girls lets stand behind them feed them POSITIVE ideas, and see what happens at the end. Cos I get the feeling even if some of you are right now and wrong later or vice versa....we will always have something to "*****" about ( sorry for the curse)
NOW LINE "HALT!" "PRESENT!".....

This is something I've been curious about; mainly whether the developers actually do anything with our ideas or not. I'd love to see a post from the developers that says "because of feedback from the forum we decided to change . . .(whatever it might be).

Lately I've been wondering whether they are bothering even looking at this forum or working on their own website. Everytime I check for new screenshots nothing's been added. I'm sure they're busy since it is due to release next month but I'm just getting a bit discouraged. :( It just would be nice to know whether they have addressed any of the issues that we have expressed on the forum.

The_Russian_Rocket
19th Feb 2005, 02:30
So boys and girls lets stand behind them feed them POSITIVE ideas, and see what happens at the end. Cos I get the feeling even if some of you are right now and wrong later or vice versa....we will always have something to "*****" about ( sorry for the curse)
NOW LINE "HALT!" "PRESENT!".....

If you were here as long as some of us have, you would know that we have covered every Positive thing there is. This “Dev” guy came in and judged the game from the trailer starting this storm of madness.

It’s been 3 months since they have updated; they haven't been standing by their customers. Thus, we complain.

Tenjo_Kalle
19th Feb 2005, 18:48
Imo single player totalwar is a very dull (i could say booring aswell) experience.

Yet I have played medieval totalwar for, I think it is now, 2,5 years - allmost every day. Because in multiplayer it is great. (maybe many in this topic are discussing diffrent things, those who dont like mtw are talking singleplayer and those who like it are talking multiplayer?) I have no doubt imperial glory will be a more fun singleplayer game, for my taste at least.

But multiplayer mtw (and shogun i guess) stand out as the only product available for those who want to try their skills as generals in comand of an army. Those who want this game to be about basebuilding ala warcraft and cossacks please you have so many games to choose from you dont need this one to be like that aswell. Please developers dont make it like that.

Let it instead be done in a similar (note similar, im not saying same) style to totalwar but better.

And also please make multiplayer available for more then 2 vs 2 games. 4 on 4 minimum please!!!!!

Kalle

edwardsb
21st Feb 2005, 12:45
I'm quite new to thread so forgive me if i say something you guys and gals do not wish to hear;

well i think the person who started the thread has a lot of point; but i do think the mucked up missile effect is rather than more to make it appealing to the masses; the developers can't get the little info corrected or it's a big thing to do that small correction i think!!!!!!!! well in rtw it was way off prevelant, u can hardly have an archer unit behind an inf and hope a not to hit the freindly inf once the're engaged hand to hand; i think it always happened in real combat; rather there should be a command to stop the missile unit stop firing when in danger of hitting the friendly units!!!!!!
so if nothing can be done then u press the panic button and then u kill the enemy as well as the friendlies (like in BraveHeart if u guys n gals recall!!!!)

e.g:
safe fire
and
fire at will
i hope it helps, i know it's a small thing but it can make a lot of diff, i'm an ardent player of rtw and i can never place my missile behind and hope not to get friendly fire casualty, and if u place the missile in front the get clobbered by the enemy cavalry is not in skirmish mode if in skirmish mode the rune into the friendly inf and start to fire thus killing the friendly inf as well.

in mtw i occurred rather rarely; (it's been some time since i played mtw but i guess they stop once the enemy inf and friend inf in hand to hand or concentrate on the far off units........

and 3 line formation meat a lot in mtw 4 missiles, in rtw that was not the case, well realism was lost there, guess IG won't make that error.......

but all in all i'm keeping my fingers crossed........

well we can't expect a 3d camp map, with ambushe points; and vantage mount peaks and valleys, but if they make the game more realistic it'll be great...... and give option to use micromanagement / or "GOOD" AI mangement.( i say that b'cos when it comes to AI management it's always screwed up!!!!!!!!, so everybody has to go back to micromanage!!!!! personally i like micr, but i have met a lot of people who don't and i think that the masse is also so!!!!)
so that they can satisfy both and get a bigger happier customer base and more PROFIT $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Gabriel_Stefan
2nd Mar 2005, 03:22
If u want a historlical correct game with deph and a company that doesn't care about profits, go play Victoria, Hearts of Iron I & II, Crusader Kings, it doesn't get anymore realistic then that.

After playing those games, playing Shogun Total War was like playing at the arcade, mindless button mashing :D

Mr. C.
2nd Mar 2005, 20:46
If u want a historlical correct game with deph and a company that doesn't care about profits, go play Victoria, Hearts of Iron I & II, Crusader Kings, it doesn't get anymore realistic then that.
:D

I've never played Victoria or the others, but since they are from Paradox and have the same engine as Europa Universalis I wouldn't go for them. They are more realistic as far as management, diplomacy, etc., but I don't like the combat resolution. I'd rather have the ability to actually direct a battle then just to see a couple of figures that represent opposing armies poking eachother with swords on a strategic map. It just doesn't do it for me.

Mr. C.
2nd Mar 2005, 20:55
Yet I have played medieval totalwar for, I think it is now, 2,5 years - allmost every day. Because in multiplayer it is great.
Kalle

Kalle, I've never tried multiplayer for MTW. Does it play smoothly?

Gabriel_Stefan
4th Mar 2005, 21:28
but I don't like the combat resolution.

what combat resolutions u c 2 guys firing at each other thats no battle resolution :D

but i know wat u mean, those games arn't for everyone.

soverign
6th Mar 2005, 20:19
d3v, your confusing "realism" and "depth".

They are extremely different things

Imperial Glory is not even supposed to be very realistic...

To my mind, IG looks like a sort of follow-up to Praetorians, and while Praetorians was highly unrealistic, it did NOT lack strategic depth. Games with a high cub appeal, like RTW, WC3, and AOM don't lack strategic depth either...and RTW is in fact MORE realistic than both MTW and STW...(but I too mourn the loss of all those formation/engagements options and whatnot)

Truthfully, if what you want is a game with all those options, go play EU2, of HOI2, or Dominions, or MOO or something...i trust Pyro to get some strategic depth in IG because without it, its toast on the market, and noone will buy it because it won't get good reviews, for one, and noone else will recomenedn it, etc.

Look at LotR: B4ME, while not completely devoid of strategic depth, its a bit on the shallow side, but are its insane production values rocketing it to the top of the sales charts? No.

Stiler
7th Mar 2005, 19:05
I have to sort of agree/disagree.

I too REALLY wanted it to be quite a bit more realistic.

From friendly fire, to the reloading animations and "wave" affect. (So when you shout fire it shouldn't be an instant fire, but move in a quick wave down the line as the sound travels).

Among other things.

Though to say that it won't be fun is another issue. I'm still greatly looking forward to the game.


I loved the Myth series by bungie (my favorite RTS series) aswell as the total war games and others like that. It's just hard to find those types of RTS games these days. So many other RTS games go the AOE/RON/WCIII route and use the same ole "build this, harvest, pump out units" with hardly any strategy to the actual combat involved in them.


No, IG it seems won't be as realistic or in-depth as some other RTS games of it's "type", going for a bit on the "arcadey" side of battles. But it makes for a better game then the other "types" of RTS like I mentioned above, so that's why i'm looking forward to it.

ultaman
27th Mar 2005, 01:20
Its a long thread so I will keep it short.

1. I hope my men dont shoot each other in the back

Obviously one has to wait for the demo but based on the trailer I also hope my units are not firing at the back of each other... common sense in a real situation they would not fire into the backs of their own side unless obscured by view in which case thats fine. Its an important point that I will look closely at in the demo.

2. As much realism as possible please

If I want to build the biggest army...send in the mass type game there are dozens elsewhere, I loved the suggestion 'From friendly fire, to the reloading animations and "wave" affect. (So when you shout fire it shouldn't be an instant fire, but move in a quick wave down the line as the sound travels).' So in my opinion realism wins over 10 year old playablity.

One question can you zoom out of the battlefield and move units? i.e. see a map of all your units and move them from there?

Thats my 2 penny worth.

BANANAMAN
27th Mar 2005, 09:23
Let's close this thread shall we? It's just a stupid thread complaining about a pc game that did'nt come out yet. :rolleyes:

ultaman
27th Mar 2005, 11:20
with respect I dont think its a stupid thread.. it brings up several important design issues that are a good discussion.. there are concerns based on the trailer that of course only playing the demo will answer but its still fun to write about them :)

as I mention above I think there are some basic things I am looking for.. also I forgot to mention range of the musket is important.. your lucky to hit a barn door at 80 paces let alone a person so lets hope they get the range right :)

anyway have fun, enjoy discussion!

HellAngel_666
27th Mar 2005, 16:12
took a hell of a long time to read 4 pages of CR - A ..... but i did and i'v a cupple of things to say

one by god i hope the enemy doesn't shot it's own bloody (the holy bloody) troops because it can kill mine though them, or visversa (new movies show it as possiable...like 3/21 movies)

two by mary i hope there's pause....if this games isn't like tw (which i hope it is) then let there be pause the same as tw and other rts games

three by heysus (Jesus) there should be more then just 4 ships on each side... so far those ships or completely in accurate to a supposed accurate game, but let there be like 20 to a side not just 4... (many battles were like 30-30 and more.)

four by adam i hope that players have to face some good ai, cause with all those stupid up-grades show it as (go on all the missions and win the game with a walk!)

five by eve i'v just sad for eve :-) and how theres no moral... :confused: WHY? cause it's to "complexe for the programers" ? i hope modders can find a way to make moral cause this game is going to be completely unrealisticif they don't. (and this is a "realistic" game by the makers? RIIIGHT?

HellAngel_666
27th Mar 2005, 16:14
p.s. theres no reason to close this thread. name one? thats relevant?

The_Russian_Rocket
27th Mar 2005, 16:24
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc8.jpg

d3v
1st Apr 2005, 13:26
Hey guys its me... the thread starter. Have you all played the demo... it seems I was right... this game aint gonna please us realism/authenticy/strategically/historicaly accurate loving gamers.... its one for the casual gamer that dosent know jack ****.

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 06:29
Dude, the demo was pretty dang good for a demo. I have played all the total war series, and a lot of the "dumbed down" games as you call them. Honestly, I think that you need to calm down. Go buy MoO 3 if you want to control every aspect of your empire.

But then again, this game will open up a preivously almost unchartered course: diplomacy! Finally! And maybe for once there will be an actual good AI for diplomacy. Not randomaly declaring war, as usual.

soverign
3rd Apr 2005, 07:16
D3V, if your going to bother flaming a game on its own forum and/or the people who play it, at least read the previous posts and explain your logic

That is to say,
TW is not the epitome of realistic, historically accurate, strategically deep, "authentic" (whatever that means in this context) gaming. I understand you really like it. That's great. It's too bad RTW didn't offer alot of the control options of the other two, I agree with you on that point.
Why SHOULD IG be a TW ripoff, which you seem so desperately to hope it would be. I, personally, perfer a bit of originality from every game I play, and there is no reason to build a ripoff of a game that did what you're trying to do much better and sooner - a la AoX vs. WC3
IG is strategically quite deep. Depth is not synomous with realism. Period.

and to say IG is for the casual gamer who doesn't know jack...wow...if that's a representation of someone who doesn't know jack about *certain things* i don't know what is...IG caters to the exact opposite of the casual gamer - rather, those who enjoy IG are those who enjoy a certain breed of hardcore historical strategy. That is NOT to say IG is realistic or accurate or intends to be, it means that is a strategically deep game who's appeal is not in its presentation/graphics/productionvalues/etc.

All I request of d3v and varios others is that you not mindlessly flame the game, offering no basis for claims. I understand you did not particularly enjoy the demo. Perhaps it wasn't what you seem to be looking for - the next TW - and you therefore didn't give it a chance, or perhaps you genuinely didn't like the gameplay, which I find understandable, but I ask that you not simply discredit the game on basis upon which it doesn't intend to acredit itself etc.

Cheers

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 13:13
Well, Imperial Glory never said it would be the next TW, did it? So why are you complaining d3v? I mean, all you have in the demo are two short battles, and thats about it, asides from a slideshow and video. So you can't really judge the game yet. WHo knows, they could have morale that effects them. And, I agree with soverign


IG is strategically quite deep. Depth is not synomous with realism. Period.

Get over it.

langmann
3rd Apr 2005, 15:44
i don't know what is...IG caters to the exact opposite of the casual gamer - rather, those who enjoy IG are those who enjoy a certain breed of hardcore historical strategy. That is NOT to say IG is realistic or accurate or intends to be, it means that is a strategically deep game who's appeal is not in its presentation/graphics/productionvalues/etc.



Wow. Those who enjoy UG are those who enjoy a certain breed of hardcore historical strategy... :confused:

The men don't even run away. They fight to the death. That says it all right there. This game in the current format is silly. :rolleyes:

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 16:17
Wow. Those who enjoy UG are those who enjoy a certain breed of hardcore historical strategy... :confused:

The men don't even run away. They fight to the death. That says it all right there. This game in the current format is silly. :rolleyes:

whats UG? or do you mean IG?

soverign
3rd Apr 2005, 16:19
Perhaps I wasn't clear, perhaps you're misinterperting me, but IG is a hardcore strategy game (because it's interest/attractiveness is in its strategic depth/gameplay) with a historical background/setting. If that doesn't anwser your doubts...I'm sorry..?

The fact that units fight to the death is a design decision, just as the decision not to have units fight to the death is, and it creates a different kind of game where different strategies are useful. True, it's very unrealistic, but that is completely irrelevant. Those of us who have played and enjoyed Praetorians know very well that that is an aspect of Pyro games of this type

Gonzodave
3rd Apr 2005, 17:44
Sure, this game has strategic depth, but tactically it's a bad joke.

langmann
4th Apr 2005, 04:09
Perhaps I wasn't clear, perhaps you're misinterperting me, but IG is a hardcore strategy game (because it's interest/attractiveness is in its strategic depth/gameplay) with a historical background/setting. If that doesn't anwser your doubts...I'm sorry..?


You're now making me laugh. We haven't seen the strategic depth beyond the battles in the demo, but if those are any reflection then this game promises to be horrid.






The fact that units fight to the death is a design decision, just as the decision not to have units fight to the death is, and it creates a different kind of game where different strategies are useful. True, it's very unrealistic, but that is completely irrelevant. Those of us who have played and enjoyed Praetorians know very well that that is an aspect of Pyro games of this type


True, its very unrealistic. Note: unrealistic. Not what they promised.

Paolai
4th Apr 2005, 09:10
D3V, which was your online name for the TW series?

Sadly I am agree with you on many points...maybe I had too many hopes on this game.