PDA

View Full Version : Demo feedback



Mike_B
31st Mar 2005, 20:37
In order to aid the developers it would be useful if we could post our feedback here. But keep it constructive.

You should be able to find it on Gamershell (http://www.gamershell.com) very soon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far I was a bit surprised that their wasn't a narrator that told you yourmission. Though that's hardly the most important. The camera really takes some time to get used to and get you confused from time to time. It would've been easier if you'd have some more options at your disposal, setting the keys the way you want it. I couldn't find a way to zoom in really close to the action too, but then again I'll have to dig in a bit deeper.

In (for now) conclusion:

Sound and visuals are certainly good, gameplay can be messy due to controls and you don't always have a clear view whether you've selected your troops or not. Also I think it might have been better to include some sort of tutorial it takes some time to get used to it. Though I'll have to replay this at a less late hour :)

HellAngel_666
31st Mar 2005, 21:34
it's been an hour. how long do you think they will take at this rate? :rolleyes:

J/K, though they could speed it up a bit eh?

sammobrownie
31st Mar 2005, 21:36
i can't find the stupid demo download. :mad: Grrrrrr :mad: could someone please post the !exact! site here plzzzzzzz!!!! :D

HellAngel_666
31st Mar 2005, 21:46
p.s. is there a pause?

HellAngel_666
31st Mar 2005, 21:47
Out! It"s Out For Dl Yes

p.s. 11 hr later YES I CAN PALY IT...

never knew ~200 would take that long on a 56K'er ... (away from cable for now)

Psycho Pigeon
31st Mar 2005, 22:43
aww man i feel your pain, well used to until i went onto adsl and now recently my isp upgraded to a 1mb line free of charge how kind! i just clicked on the demo and its at 18% already! well i will give some details once i played it, good luck 56k'er.

PANDA
31st Mar 2005, 22:49
My verdict:

Very very slimmed down version of Rome: TotalWar.

To put it as simply as possible.

Marshal Ney's Nephew
31st Mar 2005, 23:20
:mad: CAN SOMEONE (plz) POST THE WEB SITE THAT HAS THE IG DEMO!!!!!!! :eek:





i can not wait any longer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Marshal Ney's Nephew
31st Mar 2005, 23:25
( 40 SECONDS LATER) :p I just found it, nevermind. HEHE.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 00:08
This is great, much better than any of the total war series games, its only a demo so i don't know what to expect in the full version. Good graphics and i loved the detail on the units although i find the cannon balls abit weird, like i saw some one post before about the cannon balls not bouncing i found that abit unrealistic but then again i got no idea what it was like in those days. The camera control is abit strange at first but you get used to it later on. I love the gameplay, the way the units all get into formation and the guys at the front all kneel down and fire its great fun! i almost feel proud controling british troops in the desert watching them fight till the last man, i do have a few questions though:

1. Is there going to be moral in the game
2. Is it just organised battles or can you build your troops in the final version? i see the developers say that you have an econemy and you can try and make diplomacy with other players in multiplayer and i don't see how thats possible without building bases.


Hint: never put your men inside the building, their range is crap and they get bombed to bits by their cannons.

IKirov
1st Apr 2005, 00:08
Hehehe. 500-600 kpbs...download complete in 5 minutes. Ah, the glory. Will post impressions soon.

OprahAteMyBaby
1st Apr 2005, 00:43
This demo was incredibly dissapointing.

I'll first start by saying this game has excellent potential, I loved the music, loved the maps, excellent graphics, and the voices.

However, the content of the game was terrible, only complicated to a four year old. I'm not sure if there's supposed to be no morale system in the demo, but all my units fought to the death, there was no cheering, no deserters, no full scale retreats. I also didnt notice any officers in the ranks, this may have been poor looking on my side but officers should stand out. There was no general on the field during these battles? Artillery loads uniformly? Both my batteries reloaded and fired all at the same time, there should be a difference in load times, not everything works on a set timer.

The one thing that annoyed the hell out of me was how my infantry would stand behind each other and fire through the front 10 ranks of men, that's rediculous! Why doesnt my artilery use grape shot when infantry gets extremely close? Infantry was with in 10-15 meters of my artilery and they were still firing regular shot and missing. There should be a way to assault a fortified house with the bayonet, I tried in the demo, but it would not let me, maybe i was doing something wrong? I didnt notice any of my units getting tired. To test this on the easy map I ran my units back and forth in the river for several minutes, before attacking, and they won overwhelmingly. Square formation seems incorrect, I'm unsure but i've always seen a square as a perimiter of men in a square with emptyness in the middle and the officers holding the flag. I didnt hear an trumpet sounds, is this going to stay this way?

Most of all i think the game seemed to lack emotion, it was cool to hear my men say, aim fire. But after they said it for the hundredth time I was bored. Why wasnt the enemy, who were in a desperate situation, shouting to their comrades, trying to desert, or rally to the flag?

Smoke! Where the heck was it? 18th and earl 19th century warfare was characterized by the incredibly thick smoke created by their muskets, and rifles. I saw brief moments of smoke, but it quickly, and I mean quickly vanished. Smoke should stay on the field, and cause confusion among the ranks.

I dont think the senarios were big enough, but from what I saw the A.I. was rather weak, if we're forced to play campaign against the AI it better be damn good.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 01:21
Gotta try it on hard, i've learnt quickly that the A.I is programed to go for my artillary and flank it, but if you cover your arty with troops it gets confused and doesn't attack instead they move bckwards and forwards waiting for you too attack so i gotta send out some men who die to tempt them in my arty range which is abit annoying, i wouldn't mind if they formed ranks and waited for my but to march backwards and forwards... And yes i want to see smoke within the rank, also in a platoon of men i notice i never see the middle row fire, has anyone else seen them fire?. Gotta keep in mind this is just a demo so everything can't be expected. And yes its ashame a general and officers arn't included but hey! maybe you can build them?.

Grifman
1st Apr 2005, 01:50
The game badly needs the ability to pause and issue commands. It is insane to have a game requiring different tactical formations - line, column, square - and different combat modes - volley fire and melee - and speeds - marching and running - not have the ability to issue commands while paused. The Total War series has this, and it is a must for a RTS game that attempts to have any tactical depth.

Unless this is added, this is a no go for me. Sadly, other than that, the game looks great.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 02:40
I had no problem issuing commands to sertain platoons, they give you a chance to set up your army at the begining which is fair enough, the game would be way too easy if you could just pause and give your men commands then continue, insainity.

Grifman
1st Apr 2005, 03:04
I had no problem issuing commands to sertain platoons, they give you a chance to set up your army at the begining which is fair enough, the game would be way too easy if you could just pause and give your men commands then continue, insainity.

The demo only had a limited number of troops/units. If you had no problems it was because you weren't using all the tactical options there were with a large number of units. The demo was easy - try a real battle with more units. I want difficulty from a decent AI, not because I have to rush from one map spot to another.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 04:42
Well atleast you've given me hope that there will be more troops available :).

Spaghetti Hoops
1st Apr 2005, 12:38
Remember this is an Eidos game.Championship Manager 5 anyone? :p J/k.Im currently downloading the demo so Im gonna have to wait and see,but with what Ive read so far it seems to lack depth and has some peculiar little glitches.Oh well at least they brought a demo out. :rolleyes:

Hitman_M4
1st Apr 2005, 13:59
After playing the demo, my opinions:

1) IG is clearly targeting a younger age group. I'll admit the graphics looks good but as a Napoleonic fan i'm looking for gameplay and realism over looks.

2) With the game relying so much on looks then obviously the game cannot support large amounts of men. Who the hell wants to battle with 500 men?

3) The AI is poor. I set about creating a defensive line on the 2nd demo battle only for my men to face the opposite direction when the enemy built on my flank. I found this annoying as by the half way stage of the battle i had men facing backwards, chasing the enemy, etc. No bloody hold formation option

4) The square formation didn't resemble anything but a column with the side units facing in each direction. Rubbish!

These were just a few negative observations from the top of my head. I found many more.

jaywalker2309
1st Apr 2005, 14:31
After playing the demo, my opinions:
2) With the game relying so much on looks then obviously the game cannot support large amounts of men. Who the hell wants to battle with 500 men?


Demo has got a small set army size.. the battles in the full game can have a LOT more units on screen at the same time.

If i CAN (i'll ask) i'll post you a screenshot of a bigger army layout

The_Russian_Rocket
1st Apr 2005, 14:32
Pros:
1) Easy to control.
2) Good graphics.

Cons:
1) Instead of a naval battle they showed us a crappy video!
2) A slideshow of the actual game play? It was like watching screenshots I've already seen!
3) Problems with AI. I found my Calvary rushing in.....and then retreating....waited and then sat there...WTF!

The small scale and the toned down realism were expected. Overall I am content. I will still buy the box.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 15:14
Everyone will its a great and fun game, can't wait to start building and playing multiplayer(coz we all know multiplayer is where its at not loner sp).

langmann
1st Apr 2005, 15:54
The demo only had a limited number of troops/units. If you had no problems it was because you weren't using all the tactical options there were with a large number of units. The demo was easy - try a real battle with more units. I want difficulty from a decent AI, not because I have to rush from one map spot to another.

I agree with you completely. Without a pause option the game degenerates into whats easiest: making a swarm of the best troops and going after the other guy. Just like any other silly RTS. I know that in those days it was not always easy to co-ordinate troop movements, but it was done

Nice try Eidos, but nowhere close to the ability of the Total War team.

Teuvo
1st Apr 2005, 16:19
I really liked the demo. Good job! :)

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 16:51
Total war's for noobs, i don't believe they have a pause and command opotion, i mean people say IG is noobish? talk about pausing the battle and issuing orders..how noob.

Dread_lahll
1st Apr 2005, 18:09
Heh heh, sounds like pigeon is into single player only,....well first impression....battles seem too fast and I found only a few of the control features so far, (groups can be formed holding ctrl and clicking units) Morale is in it seems Rocket. Thats why your cav retreated! Sent into a insane attack?, they duitfully followed your orders, but bugged out as soon as they could..... then stop to await new orders......but do seem to not get back out of firing zones before stopping. I've not found a command function for turning units yet, Any-one find it? I suspect the people *****ing have yet to fully explore and find these functions, complaints should come only after all comand and control features are listed (so you know what your talking about).

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 18:17
Nah single player is a complete waste of time in my view, although alot of people buy games for single play in rts games, the A.I are always going to be dumb, they just arn't fun, focas on multiplayer and you got yourself a good game.

andytimtim
1st Apr 2005, 18:22
Liked the demo, told me alot abput the game thats coming.

A number of things however. In the defensive map in the desert, i had set up my troops in a nice little formation. The austrians came. My troops fired then about two coloumns of them started chasing one unit leaving a huge gap in my line. To my horror i discovered that there is no 'Stay put', 'Guard this area' button...nothing. I dont know if this was left out only for the demo, but if not...

and the look of some of the guns..is well wierd. All i could see was grey and that was with the highest settings.

http://img10.exs.cx/img10/7431/grey7sh.jpg

Its a poor picture quality but look at the difference between the guns.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 18:33
Yeh i got everything on high as i got a fast system and the guns are bad quality but its gotta be just the demo, they've boasted that there's authentic weapons and they wouldn't say that if all you can see is a long brown piece of model!. By the way i see you send your artillary out infront, whys that?.

andytimtim
1st Apr 2005, 18:42
By the way i see you send your artillary out infront, whys that?.

lol, that wasn't actually my formation, i quickly loaded up the game so i could get a shot of the grey guns :p And that was the default formation.


Yeh i got everything on high as i got a fast system and the guns are bad quality but its gotta be just the demo, they've boasted that there's authentic weapons and they wouldn't say that if all you can see is a long brown piece of model!.

But yeah im pretty sure that details such as the guns will be changed for the final version.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 18:45
Well if your convinced iam, btw is it true the game won't be coming out till Q3 2005?.

andytimtim
1st Apr 2005, 18:47
Well if your convinced iam, btw is it true the game won't be coming out till Q3 2005?.


Hard to say...My guess is April or May...June at the latest.

Maybe a little hint from the Dev's will help us solve the problem. ;)

sqall
1st Apr 2005, 19:06
At game it is out on April the 29th, friday.

andytimtim
1st Apr 2005, 19:14
At game it is out on April the 29th, friday.

I'm sure thats just a guess from them...Gamespot say the 26th of april.

And year last GAME predicted that Halo2 Would be out by May 1st. :rolleyes:

Spaghetti Hoops
1st Apr 2005, 21:13
Oh dear this is Napoleonic war for simpletons(sp? :p ).This isnt the game I was waiting for unfortunately,oh well each to they're own eh? Come to duxdelux.com for a cup of tea and a scone by the way.We love to talk! :D

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 22:14
Ok yeh its the 29th.

IKirov
1st Apr 2005, 22:23
OK...here's how I feel. I agree that it is absolutely too fast-paced and too focused on killing the enemy. This is somewhat ridiculous. For a unit to suffer 40% or 50% casualties in a battle was absolutely unthinkable, but here "regiments" (tiny, 60-man regiments) are taking 100% casualties habitually. I mean, wow! At Austerlitz, the Allies captured only 1 French flag (that is, they took the standard of only one regiment), the 4ème Ligne, and even then nowhere near all of the men in the unit were killed.

Furthermore, I am insanely bugged by two shortcomings: the lack of control for the camera and the lack of a "guard" or "hold position" button. There is simply no way I can play an RTS without being able to be sure that certain units hold their positions when I need them to. And the camera...HOW do you control it? I couldn't figure out anything besides that Page Up and Page Down pointlessly move it in a vertical loop with it automatically returning to default position. I can't zoom in. I can't zoom out. I can't rotate. Sometimes I managed to zoom in or out, but it was because of random pushings of buttons on my mouse which I was never able to replicate.

Please fix these issues...

andytimtim
1st Apr 2005, 22:39
the lack of a "guard" or "hold position" button. There is simply no way I can play an RTS without being able to be sure that certain units hold their positions when I need them to.


I agree with you 200% and that sir isn't a typo.

These simple features have been left out. I had a good formation going on. The enemy charges then all of a sudden two - three units start chasing that simple one unit, exposing my artilliery (sp?) It really does need to be added in!

Marshal Ney's Nephew
1st Apr 2005, 22:48
First of all, i loved the demo and it's graphics, gameplay,ect.....

BUT
1. They should at least load the cannons correctly(only 3 gunners? there were at least four back then)
2.There would be more good comments about the game if there were naval battles.
3.Didn't they harve drummer boys? Ensigns?(the 16 year olds who held the battalion colours) And how about the men who guarded the Ensigns with axes?

It was cool for the most part anywy, just small issues that make huge problems.

I thought this was supposed to be as historicaly correct as possible?um....

Willmore
1st Apr 2005, 23:02
I'll wait for final release, demos just don't do it for me.

OprahAteMyBaby
1st Apr 2005, 23:12
Wait, people actually like this demo? If you trust that the game will just be better at release, you're making a big leap.

As it is now this game is absoluetly ridculous! I had my 8 year old nephew swiftly defeating the enemy.

The Devs need to delay this one a couple of months and implement some realism, and meatier content if they want to reach the older crowd who, for the most part, are the wargame buyers.

If this game remains as it is with little to no changes, I will definently not be picking this one up, and that's sad because I've been following this one closely for over a year.

ultaman
1st Apr 2005, 23:31
Excellent concept demo.

But I am afraid to agree with the above comments and I would recommend delaying and polishing.

It must go beyond RTW otherwise people will compare to RTW and based on the demo it does not in my humble opinion, currently its a RTW game without the smooth user interface, the overall touch of individual men movements etc. From a military gamer perspective it lacks depth, something that is also a problem with RTW and this is where I would focus to make this game unique.

In conclusion an excellent concept demo but one is left thinking has the budget run out?.. are they rushing this a little too early to market.. it has the potential to be a GREAT ground breaking game but needs a bit more polish.

Psycho Pigeon
1st Apr 2005, 23:46
Furthermore, I am insanely bugged by two shortcomings: the lack of control for the camera

I found that but got used to it straight away, i don't know why your using page up, you use the arrow keys and middle mouse aswell as the mouse itself. And i hate having my units not stay where they are they always have to move for some reason and it gets reallly annoying.

HellAngel_666
2nd Apr 2005, 00:43
Hint: never put your men inside the building, their range is crap and they get bombed to bits by their cannons.

buildings block cannons like freaking forts!

but anyways some complaints and then some pros.

PROS!-

-good graphics (but above)

- SWEAT WATER! :eek: little stupid how the units just appear.... :( ...with their muskets up but this is a nice feature to just walk in the water. (not how you can fire in it...while completely submerged....

-nice effect with buildings! though there should be more of it...

overall IMHO (which is right of course :D ) is this game needs another 3 months of PROGRAMING and then some beta and debugging. who ever did debug it should never be asked to debug another game. for me i'm going to need some serious new development. and a new demo for this one was completely from some guys @$$! WHO MADE THIS CR@P? HERES WHY (next post

HellAngel_666
2nd Apr 2005, 00:48
cons-
-sound. really repetitive, i want to hear cannons not the people! also muskets were high piched like pop guns. not flat like cannon

-ai needs some work

-my units just MOVE? i tell them to make a huge line in front of my infantry. i don't want you to TURN when the enemy gose to the flank!!! :mad: I ALREADY GOT UNITS SET THERE FOR THAT! (biggest complaint is not being able to have units....STAY!)

-squares and cal.... not right at all. for one the center sould be empty and it sould be extreamly DENSE! also cal would just turn back (against squares) and not be able to re-issuse orders.... ex: they attack and turn right around instead of going around as in that time period.

-artillery and other firing is WAY to fast. and melee WAY to short

-skips to much and can't change res.

-units will all of a sudden stop, and then charge as you orderd.

-units eneter melee and can't com out until finished (WOW-HO-HO! :eek: :confused: ) i know it said that in the information thing but your telling me that if i want to charge with cal retreat and charge again i can't (also with infanty?) NO WAY! all the time you charge - retreat, charge - retreat, charge - retreat, charge - retreat, charge - retreat until the enemy is dead.

-also my second important (maybe even most) is how units fire into there own people and there is no effect on there commrads. this does not happen with artillery when far away (meaning you fire on a building, it always falls short and you place your people there they WILL die) but if you place them like ON the cannon (graphic wise in it) they won't be affected. but this aspect is most common in regular units. your men will fire though (so far 4 units (the noramal battle, desert) you mean to tell me it's phazed bullets? :confused: ya riight make a star trek game with phazed torpeodos if you want that one

- I WANT TO REALLY ZOOM IN! :mad:

- WHERE ARE MY BULLETS?! :mad: i pause it and i can see cannon. BUT when i pause it to see bullets i just see smoke. is this for teh FULL game? or is this again a part of those phazed bullets? :rolleyes:

-units get to tight with melee. like a ball on on top of eachother. where are the muskets hiting people? they just fall....

-camera is CR@P, my mom has better looks/camera! :cool: come on like OTHER rts's? come on....

Gonzodave
2nd Apr 2005, 01:48
Pros-
The game looks nice.

Cons-
No pause and issue order function. Terrible interface - no group formations, no movement "shadows", no rotate command, no hold formation command. Tactical games should be about tactics, not reactions. I know Pyro probably want to appeal to the simple minded "memorising hotkeys and clicking=strategy" crowd, but this is beyond a joke.
Poor AI, both on the tactical and unit level.
Strategic map is Risk style. Why couldn't they go for a tile based map, like RTW? Maneuvre was a crucial concept of Napoleonic warfare, but a Risk style map reduces strategic decisions to deciding which province to move your combined arms force into - no cavalry raids, no divide and conquer.
No grapeshot.
No morale for infantry or artillery.
No autofire for cannon.
Overly fast kill rates.
No retreat from melee. How am I supposed to screen or charge and retreat with cavalry?

I can't see any reason to get this when there's a Napoleonic mod coming out for RTW. Despite the probably lower quality of fan made content it'll be building on a far sounder base. Hell, Fields of Glory is more rewarding than this.

bahmehbah
2nd Apr 2005, 02:41
i'm guessing from all these replies that i did something wrong in install or something.... but, here's what happened for me:
1. the units were not animated at all. When walking, they looked exactly the same as when standing still.
2. The AI was strange... for some reason when the enemy cavalry got close then my squad of infantry that i had forgotten to put in square formation decided to bayonet charge rather than finish getting in square (i clicked it when the cavalry was close, but forgot earlier)
3. Square didn't seem to work... the point of square formation is to keep the enemy cavalry out. you point your bayonets out, the cavalry can't touch you. But, when i formed square the cavalry ignored the front rank and was in among my men in seconds.
4. No idea what it was, but weird untextured triangles kept appearing whenever my men or the enemies men fired.... and if i zoomed out too far then they appeared again.

I uninstalled it, and am redownloading, hoping that i just had a bad download or instally... but, could someone just varify for me that the real game will not be quite that bad? [no offence, the game looked really promising... but i thought it was something that had been slapped together pretty quickly and still had a lot of development to go..... we shall see once my download finishes eh?]
If those problems disappear in the new download of mine, then this will definately be a game I buy tho. Looks like it could be awesome (hehe, i am obsessed with that era right now too... just started reading the Sharpe series)

ultaman
2nd Apr 2005, 03:04
I read these elsewhere but included the comments because I thought they do have a point..

I felt the unit sizes were a little petite, particularly when you realize that the largest infantry size is 60 men. The battles seem like small skirmishes.

Cannons fire too rapidly and are too damn accurate at times. I watched as my men, who were running, were consistently getting nailed by howizters on a lower plateau. The cannons seemed to be firing seven shots a minute! Absurd!

I don't see the point of utilizing horse artillery, since it moves so ridiculously slow the gunners might as well be pushing it.

The camera is a little difficult to control at first, since you use the arrow keys to rotate, middle mouse button to zoom, and mouse to move the camera around.

Morale, for some odd reason, doesn't play a factor in this game, so your men generally have no qualms about fighting to the death or being sent on suicide missions.

You can't escape melee combat, which is utterly ridiculous, and must watch as your men fight to the death with the enemy or vice-versa.

Your men, in some illogical representation of sane warfare, will fire through friendly formations in an attempt to engage enemies. Not to worry though, it inflicts no friendly casualties.

Forest have no effect on fighting cavalry at all it seems. I ran into a forest once, expecting reprieve from the enemy cavalry in the woods, the horseman came charging in the woods and cut down my formation. Yay!!!

Sometimes, I would order several formations to move and only one would do so. I also don't like the fact that you have to spread out each formatiomn independently, or that you can't issue commands while in pause mode.

The game seemed like an arcade wargame.

Lets hope that cossacks 2 can do much better.

After playing the demo, my opinions:

1) IG is clearly targeting a younger age group. I'll admit the graphics looks good but as a Napoleonic fan i'm looking for gameplay and realism over looks.

2) With the game relying so much on looks then obviously the game cannot support large amounts of men. Who the hell wants to battle with 500 men?

3) The AI is poor. I set about creating a defensive line on the 2nd demo battle only for my men to face the opposite direction when the enemy built on my flank. I found this annoying as by the half way stage of the battle i had men facing backwards, chasing the enemy, etc. No bloody hold formation option

4) The square formation didn't resemble anything but a column with the side units facing in each direction. Rubbish!

These were just a few negative observations from the top of my head. I found many more.

I think the most serious flaw is only 500 men... you dont get a feel of a large scale battle..

Maybe a solution is a hydbrid of close up contact fighting 500 men and an overall map of the battlefield when you zoom out.. moving units like a general.. this to my knowledge would be unique and add the depth this game needs.. I guess tho this would add 6 months to the dev but hey its worth it

Gonzodave
2nd Apr 2005, 03:09
I was wrong, this game does have group formations. A shame they collapse utterly when moved.

Bernard
2nd Apr 2005, 03:17
Having played the demo - the landscape graphics are great (though not so much for unit textures). I surprisingly found it very smooth and fast at 1024*768 on high, anisotropic, etc. There are also some very intriguing touches such as garrisioned buildings or the infantry raising their firearms above their heads when fording. I found it quite enjoyable.

In regard to issues a lot of what of I agree with very much has been stated in this thread (such as the camera, army formations, infantry squares, effects, authenticity, sorely missing basic functionality features and a million others) several times over.

bahmehbah
2nd Apr 2005, 03:19
i have downloaded and tested the demo again now.... still same problems as before, although the infantry and cavalry DID have some animations now.... at least they marched, however weirdly....

but, the main problem still is the annoying triangles... i have discovered it is actually my troops turning into them. For some reason the model at random times disolves into an unrecognizable mass. It IS still textures, but the textures are at random places.
Worst of all, these triangles tend to grow... so i can't order my troops to move until i have moved the screen somewhere where they don't completely engulf it.
My guess is that my graphics card doesn't support the game...
Be nice if there was a list somewhere of what graphics cards ARE supported...

Lannes09
2nd Apr 2005, 04:39
Being a Napoleonic buff a friend recomended this game. As I read through the FAQ while downloading the demo, I got the impression that this would be a decent attempt at Napoleonic warfare. Now after playing the demo all I can really say is Pyro you should be embarassed! The line from the FAQ "Real history buffs will be thrilled by the historically accurate units and weaponry" is just so wrong. One could spend the entire post on just uniform inaccuracies alone, and thats just from the demo. As far as combat well most has been said in previous posts so I won't bother repeating it. Too me you guys either have some serious studying to do or you should just call it another RTS game set the Napoleonic era. If the latter is the case then please change your FAQ to better reflect your intentions.

langmann
2nd Apr 2005, 04:49
I have to agree with the rest of the people who have commented on this game. It is extremely poor at best judging from the demo, the only good thing is the graphics, and even that isn't enough to amuse the point and click crowd.

I predict this game will flop big as is if they leave it. The real wargame strategists will ignore it once they find out how it lacks any user friendly strategic manipulation, and the point and click crowd will ignore it because they tend to be into more flashy things than the 19th century, a time period that they have no real interest in and many have never heard of.

If they cannot sell it to the wargamers like the TW series has been able to accomplish than this game will flop.

I am most disappointed in the lack of moral when units are fighting melee. As someone pointed out, fighting to the death in that time period was extremely rare, and while casualties could reach a high percentage, we're talking percentages of 30% and those were at bloody sieges. Mostly one side would run off after a bit of nip and tuck. This is not represented by this game at all. We should be seeing fleeing troops, lines breaking, causing the other battle lines to break etc.

(And what's with the mission preview being poorly written? I was hoping for some time period flavour here, not instructions that sound like they're being issued by a bunch of kids playing war?)

Don't even get me started on how they buggered squares, one of the coolest infantry formations at the time.

And where's the bagpipes and the Old Trousers? I want to hear drums!

Gonzodave
2nd Apr 2005, 07:12
Just played it again, to give it a fair try, and I'm stunned by how awful it is. I lost Cyrenaie because my defensive line decided to start rotating of it's own accord. As a result, a unit of 2 men was able to slaughter my entire artillery contingent, half my units got flanked while I was trying to reposition another one to prevent it getting flanked and my Household Cavalry got killed charging into combat against a square, without orders.

This is ridiculous. I've seen freeware games with better design ethics.

StudUK
2nd Apr 2005, 09:53
A great looking game, very well presented, music is brilliant but I'm extremely disappointed.

It's just too damn simplistic, no more than an 18th century click fest C&C clone RTS.

It caught my eye in magazines but after playing the demo, It's really not the game I thought is was going to be. I got the impression it was going to be a bit more of a hardcore wargaming title in terms of tactical play on the same lines as Rome Total War.

Although turned off by the tactical battles provided in the demo I would of liked a taster of what the campaign would be been like...but of course we didn't get that

Maybe the turn based campaign play would of turned around my opinion but as it stands the battles provided is not really going to go down well with players.

I would think the majority of community will have the MTW/RTW titles and will want the see the same level of tactical play. Ok it maybe not fair to compare but everyone will, things have moved on !!


This game if for the casual gamer that has none to minimal knowledge or concern for strategy

I do appreciate the demo as now I know not to purchase it.

jaywalker2309
2nd Apr 2005, 10:50
i have downloaded and tested the demo again now.... still same problems as before, although the infantry and cavalry DID have some animations now.... at least they marched, however weirdly....

but, the main problem still is the annoying triangles... i have discovered it is actually my troops turning into them. For some reason the model at random times disolves into an unrecognizable mass. It IS still textures, but the textures are at random places.
Worst of all, these triangles tend to grow... so i can't order my troops to move until i have moved the screen somewhere where they don't completely engulf it.
My guess is that my graphics card doesn't support the game...
Be nice if there was a list somewhere of what graphics cards ARE supported...

What graphics card/drivers are you running?

sqall
2nd Apr 2005, 14:29
I love the demo I was playing it for hours, but the AI was annoying on the desert map.
I found the enemy running backwards and forwards as I was holding my position, anyone else seen this?

Psycho Pigeon
2nd Apr 2005, 14:34
Yeh they do that when you put your army in a tight formation where they A.I know its going to lose, it happens to me mostly when i surround my artilary with men.

mikeike808
2nd Apr 2005, 15:12
Got the demo last night and I'm really impressed. One thing I have found so far is this: I have a dual monitor setup on my PC that extends my desktop. My main monitor sits right in front of me and my second monitor is on the left. I found in the IG demo that if I hit the left side of the screen to move the camera to the left my mouse goes off the game screen and ends up on the left monitor. And, if I click over there on the left desktop the game minimizes.

Other than that, so far I'm impressed. Finally a game where the camera is ultra adjustable.

sqall
2nd Apr 2005, 15:31
I find the camera very easy to use.

andytimtim
2nd Apr 2005, 15:55
a cool little feature i just noticed, was that the units become dirty after fighting in battles. In the desert map my units were standing in a line when i noticed that their uniforms were starting to get covered in dust.

HellAngel_666
2nd Apr 2005, 16:00
quote:
no group formations
end quote:

that one i'v got to give to Pyro...go to the tatices bar, its all there...

there are so many differnt BAD aspects to this game. i believe that we should all sign a Petition telling pyro this game sucks. we can do this with all the different gaming forums...ign, gamespy, gamespot,tafn,tw page ,twcenter,NTW...ect. (alot of tw people but thats because they to look onto this game)

if we get enough peeps they might change it. imo it's a lot better then sitting around and just typing how bad it is, when we can DO SOMETHING!

whos with me? :confused:

andytimtim
2nd Apr 2005, 16:21
whos with me? :confused:


*Grabs pitchfork!* :mad:


Its time to make grown men cry... :cool:


nah im joking. :p I still plan on buying this game.

OprahAteMyBaby
2nd Apr 2005, 16:30
Wow I thought I was the only one who thought this game was terrible, and yet there's still people in this forum who enjoyed it! Pyros not going to waste more money fixing a game that will sell to the masses of clickfest gamers! This games awful guys, we need to somehow get the message to the developers!

HellAngel_666
2nd Apr 2005, 16:39
go to my Petition thread and SIGN! other then that i don't know what to do... :confused: but if we sign that (and the other places do to.) we should get some response!

andytimtim
2nd Apr 2005, 16:42
Wow I thought I was the only one who thought this game was terrible, and yet there's still people in this forum who enjoyed it! Pyros not going to waste more money fixing a game that will sell to the masses of clickfest gamers! This games awful guys, we need to somehow get the message to the developers!

i understand what your saying, but you played a demo. This isn't the full game.

Have they even done a beta test yet? If not we may be infact testing a beta. IMO

OprahAteMyBaby
2nd Apr 2005, 17:27
The game comes out in 2 weeks, I think Beta is done, the game will probably go gold soon.

Mike_B
2nd Apr 2005, 17:35
quote:
no group formations
end quote:

that one i'v got to give to Pyro...go to the tatices bar, its all there...

there are so many differnt BAD aspects to this game. i believe that we should all sign a Petition telling pyro this game sucks. we can do this with all the different gaming forums...ign, gamespy, gamespot,tafn,tw page ,twcenter,NTW...ect. (alot of tw people but thats because they to look onto this game)

if we get enough peeps they might change it. imo it's a lot better then sitting around and just typing how bad it is, when we can DO SOMETHING!

whos with me? :confused:

You can scratch TAFN right off that list.

Your idea is good but I don't understand why you don't just post in the demo feedback thread and the likes. I'm pretty sure the moment you tell them their game sucks (after playing a demo) will make them loose interest pretty quick. Post your opinions, your ideas/suggestions for improvement but keep in a way that it will actually add something meaningfull.


i understand what your saying, but you played a demo. This isn't the full game.

Have they even done a beta test yet? If not we may be infact testing a beta. IMO

From what I read in the GameSpy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/imperial-glory/600439p1.html) preview they still have much testing to do.


It's far too early to give Imperial Glory a definite thumbs-up. After all, these observations are based on unfinished code, and crucial things like troop AI and CPU managerial skill still need to be tested. However, it passes the initial test of looking like a great title on the surface. All of the trappings are in place. We'll find out soon enough if it reaches its potential after it ships on April 26th.



As far as the release date goes, it wouldn't be the first time a game gets delayed ;)

andytimtim
2nd Apr 2005, 17:48
After all, these observations are based on unfinished code, and crucial things like troop AI and CPU managerial skill still need to be tested. However, it passes the initial test of looking like a great title on the surface. All of the trappings are in place. We'll find out soon enough if it reaches its potential after it ships on April 26th.



If this is true then idoubt it willmake the april 26th ship date.

sqall
2nd Apr 2005, 19:16
People look at yourselves!
your going off ranting at pyro studios, making petitions when all you have done is played a demo.
2 battles, that is it, only 2! Do you know what the campaign is like? No.

In the real game you can teach your men new formations etc, so theres loads more. Just wait untill you play the campaign.

langmann
2nd Apr 2005, 19:58
People look at yourselves!
your going off ranting at pyro studios, making petitions when all you have done is played a demo.
2 battles, that is it, only 2! Do you know what the campaign is like? No.

In the real game you can teach your men new formations etc, so theres loads more. Just wait untill you play the campaign.


A demo is supposed to help sell the game, this is horrible. The TW Rome demo, while still being a slice of the game, was one million times better than this.

It seems like a lot of people are just "on-side" with Pyro more due to some sort of fan support than actually being realistic.

Take a good serious look at this game, its horrid. All units fighting to the death?

As to TAFN, who cares about them?

I think it is important to explain what is wrong with the game now rather than have them release a title only people who seem devoted to Pyro will buy.

The Kalden Worther
2nd Apr 2005, 20:04
If a lot of us say the game needs revising will it be done? A lot of issues have been raised here that need to be addressed. I don't know what the release version of the game will have in it, but if these issues are not address or the game does not prove to be so good in other respects that these issues can be overlooked, then I will not buy the game. I would be happy with an excellent AI and a decent interface.

The game is going to be released in a few weeks. If they chose to incorporate suggestions made here will they have enough time and if they do not have time will they change the release date? I would rather wait for a good game. Last year Rome: Total War was released with beautifully graphics and a horrible incomplete AI. The patch did not fix the problems and they are going to fix the problems in an expansion. Basically they are making people pay for a patch.

The demo of Imperial Glory has shown players that the game still needs work. It is beautiful, but things like a stand ground order and moral need to be in the game. Have these problems been addressed in the full game or will they be?

It's a question a lot of gamers probably want to know. I know it's not in a company's best interest to say what the problems with their games are, but it's the honorable thing to do. Not doing it is lying by omission, at least for those who go looking for the information. I would have a great deal more respect for a company that said our game has problems and explains what they are. At least then I would know they realize their product has problems that they need to work on. I would probably think anything they make will be in competent hands. So will what we recommend here mean anything?

langmann
2nd Apr 2005, 20:14
The game is going to be released in a few weeks. If they chose to incorporate suggestions made here will they have enough time and if they do not have time will they change the release date? I would rather wait for a good game. Last year Rome: Total War was released with beautifully graphics and a horrible incomplete AI. The patch did not fix the problems and they are going to fix the problems in an expansion. Basically they are making people pay for a patch.


Exactly, though the latest patch of Rome went a long way towards a better game. But good example.

One problem with the interface is the pause - no being able to issue orders.

I'll explain why because I gave the demo a good try.

What you are doing is nailing the pause button, going to your unit, unpausing, selecting the unit, nailing the pause button, scrolling to where you want the unit to go, unpausing, clicking, pausing, going back to another unit, unpausing, selecting, nailing the pause button etc etc etc.

This was in the Cerenicia battle, where there were a decent number of units. The reason I had to do this was to constantly manage my troops in order for them to do the LEAST BIT of tactical things, like standing in one spot and not wheeling to shoot at a unit of 3 enemy... or making sure my cavalry didn't just stand in one spot. The map is beautiful and large, but in order to have any sort of combined tactics a pause is required. Otherwise the game just gets hard to manage. Especially if there were more units...

sqall
2nd Apr 2005, 20:30
Ok, if you are not going to buy the game, and keep complaining how you think that the demo is crap and how rtw is so much better.

Then why bother? Why bother coming on here?

The Kalden Worther
2nd Apr 2005, 20:50
You misunderstood me. I will buy the game if people in the forums are saying it's good, but if they're finding a lot of problems I won't. However, I will not go out and buy it at release, period.

Also, I never said RTW was better. I was using it as an example of what this game might turn into: a game with beautiful graphics, but with many major problems that should have been addressed.

Actually, I have high hopes for the game. That's why I come here, but just because I have high hopes doesn't mean they're going to be fulfilled. The demo showed a lot of good things, but it also showed problems. Before we buy the game we need to know if these will be fixed or not. It's the same as selling a car you know has a bad transmission. It's dishonest, especially if the buyer asks about it.

Mike_B
2nd Apr 2005, 20:52
As to TAFN, who cares about them?



Enough if you look at the stats. But that's besides the subject.

sqall
2nd Apr 2005, 20:53
ok sorry my bad.
I wasnt just adressing it to you, I was directing it to most people.

Timber...wolf
2nd Apr 2005, 21:10
:) :) Thanks for a Demo that shows elements of the game. Great Graphics. Hopefully this fantastic game will not be just another promising game that is full of bugs. So in other words please do not release it until all bugs are worked out. And advise us as to what hardware profiles are supported such as Nvidia and ATI.

May want to put out a demo that does more than show land battles like other aspects of the game ... One wherein we can build a couple of buildings make some units and take a province.

Quests ... good idea seems different in a strategy game nice going.

Some people have compared this to the Total War series ... Total war stinks because it takes litterally months to do anything its to overwhelming and overwhelming of repetion.. total war is.

Hopefully Imperial Glory will not become repetitive. It seems that it may not.

Put the manual on pdf on the CD Rom or DVD it comes with. Also perhaps put a starter manual in print to get one going and an indepth more complete manual on pdf that explains everthing so often gamers have to play game by trial and error and live on boards more so than enjoying game to get anything out of it. Answer all our normal questions in a complete printable pdf. Make all stuff printable on pdf so we can enlarge it and print it and write on it and stick it up in or rooms so we can refer to it when we play.

Also make it to where we dont have to fight battles to where there is an option that the pc and auto decide who wins.

Diplomacy some how make it to where it is more than just a word actually a part of the game. Like if we back stab a neighbor or something all nations go to peace with each other and wipe us off face of earth.

I cant decide if cameras are ok or not maybe they do need some work ....

Main thing though is have replayability ...

NO bugs ... Replayability .. and no a bunch of repetitiveness will win it everytime.. Replayability is simply done but allowing many options even if seemingly unrealistic like a profound research bonus setting .. Many different research bonus settings .... many different options of starting units the number of units one can start with. .... Different time periods to start. .... How about the ability to control two countries at same time ... can these two take over world with others all allied against them .. That would blow the gaming communities mind.

Different beginning resource amounts to start with.....

Different beligerence or haterd other nations have a start against the player. ...

Not just simply certain nations have certain advantages and disadvantages have this in the historic setting but then allow each nation to have same advantages and disadvantages so a player can always be England if they want to .

In othere words get the old game Imperiallism 2 and its patch and oberve all the tweakable settings it has for it to change its face from game to game .. Thats Replayability ... Thanks for your time and your demo..

OprahAteMyBaby
2nd Apr 2005, 22:26
People look at yourselves!
your going off ranting at pyro studios, making petitions when all you have done is played a demo.
2 battles, that is it, only 2! Do you know what the campaign is like? No.

In the real game you can teach your men new formations etc, so theres loads more. Just wait untill you play the campaign.


You have no proof of this... On the main website it said that history buffs will enjoy the historical accuracy of this game. That's cool and all, but being a Napoleonic buff this game is nothing at all like what would have occured, not even remotley close. This game can be compaired more to a modern warfare game than a napoleonic game. My point is you seem to trust they're going to add everything they said into the full game. You have no guarantee they will. I remember star wars galaxies they said you could become a jedi. Only later did it come out that the option was not yet implemented, until about 6 months after release.

It's sadly people like yourself who ruin the videogame industry. A company puts out a terrible game, and you guys eat it up.

andytimtim
2nd Apr 2005, 22:46
It's sadly people like yourself who ruin the videogame industry. A company puts out a terrible game, and you guys eat it up.


I can't see how he is ruining the game industry. :confused:

You have to accept that people have different opinions to the one's you have.

Lannes09
2nd Apr 2005, 23:10
I would not even comment on this RTS game if the developers had not stated in many interviews and their own FAQ that historical accuracy was important. That being said from the looks of the demo their idea of 19th century warfare is completley off the mark. If this is going to be another RTS click fest than thats fine I'll go my own way, but if they're going to be so bold and challenge my/our intelligence by saying history buffs will be amazed then they better produce something other than mindless mayhem or expect to be ripped apart by 'history buffs' amatuer or otherwise. Even though this is only a demo it fails to prove that any thought has been given to the complexitties of Napoleonic battles. For those of you who enjoy the demo and find little faults with it I hope the game inspires you to educate yourselves on the era, then you will understand why people are being so harsh.

langmann
2nd Apr 2005, 23:20
I would not even comment on this RTS game if the developers had not stated in many interviews and their own FAQ that historical accuracy was important. That being said from the looks of the demo their idea of 19th century warfare is completley off the mark. If this is going to be another RTS click fest than thats fine I'll go my own way, but if they're going to be so bold and challenge my/our intelligence by saying history buffs will be amazed then they better produce something other than mindless mayhem or expect to be ripped apart by 'history buffs' amatuer or otherwise. Even though this is only a demo it fails to prove that any thought has been given to the complexitties of Napoleonic battles. For those of you who enjoy the demo and find little faults with it I hope the game inspires you to educate yourselves on the era, then you will understand why people are being so harsh.

Well said.

Those of us who are disappointed are disappointed because we had high hopes that the TW series would be offered some competition because competition is a good thing.

Plus and more importantly, we were also interested in a game that reflects and era we enjoy.

OprahAteMyBaby
2nd Apr 2005, 23:27
I can't see how he is ruining the game industry. :confused:

You have to accept that people have different opinions to the one's you have.


But, you cannot argue with facts. This is advertized as highly historical game, it should stay true to the historical era it represents. This game is as much a space war game as it is a napoleonic game. Yet, people here on this forum, albeit, a minority of the forum, are eating this game up. If this game sells well, the developers will next time around, use a new method of developing their game. Less work, less research, same amount or more $$$$

HellAngel_666
2nd Apr 2005, 23:34
well put! thats why i'm so po'ed about this game to. i'll i do in my spare time is read about the nepoleonic era battles, on land and sea. (lets not go to the sea with ig because i'd blow up with all the inaccurces with it so far. most simple when the ships crash the masts don't come down? WTF?!) anyways they say this game is supposse to be new and different. will it is different, the difference being it has no truth to it! look at all the above post and any one of you good-sayers can see where we are coming from. this game needs work, or it's going to really suck!

Dread_lahll
3rd Apr 2005, 00:49
lol...how pitiful the lot of you are, tons of complaints about the lack of 'realism' of the game, nit-picking of insugificat details, but nothing about the command and control features (or lack of them), with-out the ability to control units or armies in detail, its the same as playing AOE, So many saying RTW is great, when that had half the unit control features as MTW. Guess i'll wait to see if the naval side of the games worth doing.

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 01:15
for the same "Naval Aspect" play these three games

more like IG
age of sail: www.akella.com

first person/third person single ship control with ai as a help

sea dogs: www.akella.com
pirates of the carribean: www.akella.com

Zeus Commander
3rd Apr 2005, 03:48
I understand it was only the demo and some of the problems will be corrected.

My main concerns are:
1) the camera keys need to be reworked to make it easier to navigate the map

2) Let us pause the game

3)Let us group units under more than one shortcut group

4) GREAT GAME!!!

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 06:38
Weelllllllll, lets step back and think for a moment. Withouht making this game massive, such as 20gb, lets try to make it pretty realistic

But still, masts falling? C'mon buddy. Wait till the next cycle of RTS games. Then maybe it will happen. But all around, after playing the demo, it is a very good beta version. SOme bugs to fix, like disengaging infnatry form meleeing on calvary, not smart, so cannons can decimate them.

Mike_B
3rd Apr 2005, 10:04
My point is you seem to trust they're going to add everything they said into the full game. You have no guarantee they will.

It's sadly people like yourself who ruin the videogame industry. A company puts out a terrible game, and you guys eat it up.

He has just as much proof as you have, he has no proof it will be in, but you don't have proof it won't be in.

I don't really see this as ruining the industry. Believe it or not there are people who will like this game and will buy it. Are you saying they can't buy it because you don't like it? Probably not but it comes over that way.

Miksu
3rd Apr 2005, 11:02
He has just as much proof as you have, he has no proof it will be in, but you don't have proof it won't be in.

I don't really see this as ruining the industry. Believe it or not there are people who will like this buy. Are you saying they can't buy it because you don't like it? Probably not but it comes over that way.

At least I will:D

To Lannes09: "I hope the game inspires you to educate yourselves on the era, then you will understand why people are being so harsh."

I have read and been studying Napoleon stuff since I was 13 (few weeks I`m 22). I love the era and I want to play all these battles and I dont care if IG aint accurate compared to historybooks. So you cant say that "only ignorent play IG":D
Hope you understand my bad English

Mercia
3rd Apr 2005, 11:29
In my experience, demos are fairly representative of the fundamental gameplay to be found in the full version (despite any caveats or statements from the developers/publishers to the contrary). Yes, there will be more units available but this won't alter the underlying game engine or the user interface with which the battles are fought. And with the imminent release of the full version, Imperial Glory is likely to be going gold in the next fortnight. So, the scope for changes - even minor ones - is very small indeed. So anyone who is expecting a significantly different battle experience in the full game is going to be seriously disappointed.

To be fair to Eidos and Pyro, this game has never been pitched as being a deep wargame or a modern version of Napoleon in Russia et al. You only have to look at their back catalogue to see this. It is plain to see that the game has evolved from Praetorians. Pyro have strong production values and wonderful artwork but their games have never exhibited a great deal of depth. Their target audience is geared more towards the casual and younger gamer. Grognards should look elsewhere to satisfy their lust for historical accuracy and factual correctness.

Personally, I'm more interested in the strategic campaign anyway, having always been a fan of Risk (especially the fantastic extended 'Ultimate Risk' mode from Hasbro Interactive's 1996 PC version). Provided the auto-resolve is better than in STW/MTW/RTW, I doubt I will even play the battles much. And I can understand and accept that the demo doesn't include the campaign mode, as was the case for RTW. My biggest concern is that the strategic layer has not been fully developed because of the need to focus on the tactical battles as well. Essentially, two-layer titles like this are really two games rolled into one and require the same level of care and attention to both the strategic and tactical elements. Lord of the Realms III is a recent example of a two-layer game which failed to deliver on both counts because too many corners were cut and too many compromises taken.

I'm therefore not too disappointed with the two battles in the demo. They are more or less what I expected. They look nice (until you zoom in) but don't offer any real challenge or authenticity and the AI is highly suspect. I agree the camera control could be better. Occupying buildings is a nice touch I found that troops deployed in this way were too vulnerable to musket and artillery fire. It should require a full-on assault with greater numbers to overpower a unit held up in a building.

On paper, the Naval battles offer something over and above the tried and tested TW format. However, I'm not getting excited about these either as I'm fairly confident they won't live up to the hype. Curious that this part of the game has been excluded from the demo. This suggests that either the coding isn't finished, or Eidos/Pyro are reluctant to reveal just how 'limited' this key selling point of the game might be - something which could certainly damage sales.

In conclusion, I think it is important to judge the game for what it is intended to be, not what you'd like it to be. Even if there was consensus on what the hardcore fans would like to see in the game (and this could be implemented), the resultant game would sell less than 5,000 copies! Hardly a commercially viable prospect for the developers or the publishers.

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 13:15
Did it occur to you they could just being trying to whet your appetite for more?

Spaghetti Hoops
3rd Apr 2005, 13:54
Its not going to work though is it?A lot of us here were gearing ourselves up for a historicaly accurate Napoleonic era game.And we seem to have ended up with AOE! This wont wet our appetites IMHO just turn a lot of people away from Pyro and Eidos( :mad: CM5 :mad: ).The game is way too fast and very simple.Dont get me wrong there are some nice touches like taking over buildings etc but that doesnt make a game does it? This is like a steak and kidney pie without the steak,and I DONT like kidney! :p

andytimtim
3rd Apr 2005, 14:21
I guess we're gonna have to wait and see if the developers have been listenting to us then.

Oh and i love steak and kidney pie ;) :p

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 14:45
quote:But still, masts falling? C'mon buddy. Wait till the next cycle of RTS games. Then maybe it will happen. But all around, after playing the demo, it is a very good beta version. SOme bugs to fix, like disengaging infnatry form meleeing on calvary, not smart, so cannons can decimate them.
end quote:
lol many games have this feature(i stated some good sailing games all over just search). modders have even been able to do it. it's not hard if you plan on being historically accurate

langmann
3rd Apr 2005, 15:48
quote:But still, masts falling? C'mon buddy. Wait till the next cycle of RTS games. Then maybe it will happen. But all around, after playing the demo, it is a very good beta version. SOme bugs to fix, like disengaging infnatry form meleeing on calvary, not smart, so cannons can decimate them.
end quote:
lol many games have this feature(i stated some good sailing games all over just search). modders have even been able to do it. it's not hard if you plan on being historically accurate


Well masts falling are the least of my worries though it could and probably should be done as that tended to be a relavent part of naval warfare at the time. However...

The fact that the men fight to the death and never run away, that there is no stand ground command, that the AI for both the computer and your own units is hopeless, that the men fire through their friends regardless of their rank position, that there is no pause-issue-orders command so I have to keep smacking the pause button in order to have any semblence of strategy and combined arms... you know the basics of a realistic strategy game seem to be missing here.

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 16:11
Wow, that doesn't mean it has to be perfect. calm down. I beat both of those missions with ease, usually only losing 1/5 of my forces, usualy including most of my artillery. You just have to be a very quick thinker. It is not that hard. Does CnC, MoO 3, or any RTS have pause? Not ususally. Now, if you wnat that, just shut up and go away. This game might not have it. So quit complaing like a bunch of sissiys.

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 16:15
same here. thats why i don't care about the sea portion (stated above)

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 17:31
ok finnaly got IMAGE of a HUGE error. when a cal chages a unit, (here is in rear) the WHOLE unit is wiped out when BARELY touched in the middle. words just dosn't do it justice

http://www.thelordz.co.uk/forum/download.php?id=59

logicosmic
3rd Apr 2005, 17:40
dude, can't see it. Says unauthorized. Nice. I agree with the fight to the death thing. That is really freaking annoying because I can't use artillery to engage them.

quantic
3rd Apr 2005, 17:56
The main problem for me is actually the troop graphics and size of units. The colours are so washed out. For me the essence of the napoleonic wars is the vibrant colours of the uniforms. That is not represented in the demo. The zoom in on the units is unsatisfactory after playing RTW. This is strange though as the movies and screenshots seemed to show a more vibrant colour palate.

It is frankly hard work controlling the troops and even placing them in the formation you desire. The cavalry units seem next to useless.

I'm really not too sure about this.

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 18:00
ok i'll try another idea. for now cheat out this thread

http://www.thelordz.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3559&start=25

i should have it up on my web site latter.

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 18:02
about graphics i think that the demo is not really showing it's full worth. more detail in demo means more mb to dl. if this demo had the detail of a full game it could be a gig!

quantic
3rd Apr 2005, 18:04
I'd like to think so Hell. There does appear to be some disparity between the troop colours of the movies and the demo.

HellAngel_666
3rd Apr 2005, 18:31
thats the only thing i don't rage on IG is the graphics. except 2d trees. thats just plan stupid!

p.s. also the units seem strange to me. i want them to hold their muskets in STYLE! lol :cool: :D but in the demo it has 3 (5 with water) animations for holding a musket, and two differnt colours (black and gray) kinda weird if you ask em

Drewoid13
4th Apr 2005, 02:54
I've rd the rdme, and i still can't play the demos. i've got a Radeon 9800 Pro card and should work. nybody help?

andytimtim
4th Apr 2005, 09:41
I've rd the rdme, and i still can't play the demos. i've got a Radeon 9800 Pro card and should work. nybody help?

You might to update your drivers.

Lindkvist
7th Apr 2005, 09:18
I ‘m one of many that are disappointed with what I’ve seen in the demo.
I didn’t really have high hopes on this game to be historical accurate nor realistic but I expected it to be at least playable, but it’s not even that. :(

All I can say is that it looks nice and have some cool effects but that’s all. :rolleyes:

This game needs to have a command during pause feature and perhaps a speed control. I’m too old for this “click fest” game. :p

I don’t like too much micromanagement but since you would only control about 1000 men it may work with, the above mentioned, features.

I like to be a commander in chief not a colonel for every single unit. :D

/Lars L.

cutter3377
7th Apr 2005, 10:43
absolutely love this game and cant wait to buy it.Its easy to control and play and visually stunning and all ive seen is the demo which ive won in both easy and intermediate.It took me a while to win the intermediate level until i figured out that you can garrison your troops in the buildings which is awesome and something that rtw doesnt have.

Baron Von Lowe
7th Apr 2005, 13:39
I think the game has massive promise and needs only a few tweaks but

1. The units in the game move too fast.
--Artillery can unlimber and limber instantaneously!?!?
--A battallion of infantry can go from line to square in 2.1 seconds?!?!
--There is no gamespeed slider?
--Infantry seems to move at 22 miles an hour(though cav seems fine)

2. Gunnery seems unrealistic.(Though I do like the Shrapnel shell the howitzer has)
-- No cannon balls bouncing through the ranks
-- No canister to shred the enemy to jelly

3. No way to see where your units are destined other than a small pin. I like that particullar option in RTW. It allows easier placement during combat.
--Would like to see units hold position and formations I put them in on the march.

4. Naval battle video seems chaotic.
-- I love naval combat games of this era but am a little concerned that if all the ships need to be individually controlled that it will just be a big warcraft like cluster.
--I would suggest having fleet formations. Choosing a flagship that you control and the rest follow it in the formation. With the option of splitting your ships into several fleets each with a flagship you can control.


Just my two cents
_________________
"I used to say of him (Napoleon) that his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men."
Duke of Wellington November 2, 1831

Cathal
7th Apr 2005, 14:04
There are a lot more negatives than positives for me.

All I can say is COPY Rome Total War in terms of camera controls and unit selection and viewing. Don't re-invent the wheel, R:TW is perfect.

Also, is there a way to get your men to stay in one position and not charge? I had a line of rifleman (medium scenario I believe, in the desert) and once they shot one volley, they charged the nearest unit.

What about viewing where you just placed a unit, is that possible? Are there grouping functions available?

Basically, what I'm saying, is when it comes to controlling the camera, unit movement and selection, just do what R:TW did.

I like that there will be naval battles, although I didn't play it since I got upset with the land battles. I also like the way there are wounded soldiers lying on the ground.

P.S. I just played the 2 land battles and uninstalled the game.

Baron Von Lowe
7th Apr 2005, 14:35
Oh and one last thing

How about a "Fix Bayonets" command? Soldiers in those days didnt go into battle with them fixed and it takes time to screw them on. And having them fixed makes your muskets less accurate.

Imagine Planning to fire one volley then charge so you march up to the enemy line. The enemy commander sees what you are up to so orders his men to fix bayonets. You already have yours fixed and decide here is your opourtunity and decide to forget the volley and catch the enemy commander with his pants down..."CHARGE" Now you catch his men wit their muskets between their legs fixing bayonets!

_________________
"I used to say of him (Napoleon) that his presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men."
Duke of Wellington November 2, 1831

mob
7th Apr 2005, 14:52
cant come close to beating rome tw or mtw or stw but its good with no network prob and the idea of making more then 5 playeable online nations would be great and use a better engine for far away because it seems to be the same for all tw slimed down the lag by doing it the other way
make it 3v3 or more have at least 3 types of gunners/melee/cav for eac army and a few cannons make austria very cheap and britian very expensive etc......
have more options in start wise let us set our own ranks
have a good online server
make the games and the server in the same rooom like rtw not like lotr wer its dif rooms
make it an enjoyable game
i can be a beta tester if you wish im a good enough judge and wont critise i will give tips if you need them
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm seems a good game besides needs alot more countrys do 5 is a bit of stone age laughter to be honest


need a gen aswell i was shocked to see none

Sveland
7th Apr 2005, 23:14
horrible, read everything i complained about and all of d3v's posts.

Guevara
8th Apr 2005, 06:20
You guys RTW sucked. It was so incredibly bugged with horrible AI both diplomically and tactically. And it seems IG has copied it. Hopefully the campaign map will be more indepth with abilities to control ur empire. But like RTW, it looks good, thats it. Now im really hesitant about this game. Too bad cuzz i was really excited when i played the demo for the first time. And now im saddened because all these suggestions will NOT be put into the game. From experience of playing demos, the demos reflect the final game. Oh well. THey lost my buy.

sammobrownie
8th Apr 2005, 11:11
if you check out www.rometotalrealism.com there are many patches which are awesome for this rome total war game. The units are changed and upgraded, even the map is made bigger (helps to have broadband)

Villaret-Joyeuse
8th Apr 2005, 13:13
First off, I must say that I am not just some history buff, I actually research this period in history. I am currently finishing up my PhD in French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (www.fsu.edu/~napoleon) (You can find me, Kenneth Johnson, on the list of students) My field is more naval history, but I have to have a firm grounding in land warfare as well.

Positives - Graphics......

Negatives - I'm not going to nitpick about uniforms however here are some points to take into account.

Control - control works well for small battle. However, Austerlitz size battle would be freaking impossible if you have to click your battallions one by one. There needs to be a Total war style click-and-drag which makes all the selected battalions line up.
AI - Units moving all over the place without holding position. BIG BIG NONO!!!Need "Guard" or "Hold Position"
Artillery -
1. No grapeshot.
2. No autofire for cannon.
Squares -
1. Currently only right for Austrians. The Austrian troops were too ill-disciplined to form regular squares, so the Austrians (after 1805, I believe) came up with the "masse", which was basically a giant square mass of troops, equal to a square. *You can bet the French gunners loved to target those* :D
2. For the rest (except maybe Spanish), the center should be empty.
3. Cavalry should automatically call off attack unless you force them to try and break the square
4. Squares should not be able to move.
5. Should take a little bit longer to form into square.
Melee - Till the death? What the heck?
Camera control
Speed -
1. Infantry can run a little too fast in formation. Line should only be able to march slowly.
2. Horse artillery a little too slow.
Firing through units??????
Lack of morale?? - Units from certain countries should break easier than others.


I'm not at all picky about being exactly like a Napoleonic battle. However this has like a historical accuracy of around 10-15%.

My suggestions:
1. Fix the major problems
2. Release a second (improved) demo before release. Too many people have been turned off by this bad demo.

Guevara
8th Apr 2005, 19:27
NTW2 is going to be wayy limited. Some1 said earlier that we need our own modifying community to make the game great. There is no doubt that the game will probably have everything we want come 6 months from the release date. But i dont want another RTW.. arrg

sqall
8th Apr 2005, 19:42
Dont flame me people... :rolleyes:

But dont have so many doubts about the game, and saying that modders will need to fix it lol.
Ok, you don't like the demo but give the game a try 1st befor you start claiming that it needs modding. ;)

Cathal
9th Apr 2005, 15:00
Dont flame me people... :rolleyes:

But dont have so many doubts about the game, and saying that modders will need to fix it lol.
Ok, you don't like the demo but give the game a try 1st befor you start claiming that it needs modding. ;)


Why would someone spend $50 on a game when they didn't even like the demo? It's not like you can get a total refund.

Thrust123
9th Apr 2005, 16:59
Hi, I am enjoying this demo, especially now that I've got the mod that allows me to play with the Austrian which brings new challenges.

Ok, I haven't read all the previosu pages of this thread (I'm lazy and impatient) and maybe someone has already addressed what I've got to say, but anyway:

1) MELEE ATTACK ORDER NOT WORKING: The main thing is that nor the button nor the corresponding hot key "X" to order my troops to melee attack seems to work, or at least it doesn't work most of the time.
This means that whenever I give my troops this order they simply just stand and fire instead of running to engage the enemy hand to hand like I wish.

2) GRAPESHOT IN CANNONS: Just a questions: Will one be allowed to load GRAPESHOT in the cannons so as to oppose closely approaching enemy troops? or is this already handled automatically? It just seems to me like the AI player's cannons are much more effective when defending against my charges against their cannons than mine are.

Otherwise, congratulations for the demo. The game can be perfected, no doubt as everything else, but for now I am content and am really looking forward to the end product.

BANANAMAN
10th Apr 2005, 16:18
Okey okey I agree, it's fun to play but I only buy it if there is a pause & giving orders during pause option. If not then it would be too much frustrating to play.

BANANAMAN
10th Apr 2005, 16:37
Okey okey I agree, it's fun to play but I only buy it if there is a pause & giving orders during pause option. If not then it would be too much frustrating to play.

Or make that a pause & giving orders during pause option AND a hold/stand ground option. The rest of the game is fine if you like the Napoleonic era.

quantic
10th Apr 2005, 20:49
Well after a lot of reflection and replay I must say the game is genuinely growing on me. I think the main problem has been I am used to playing the Total war engine and command structure.

As we have only seen the combat of this game I can honestly say it is superior to Rome Total war which is just too repetitive and restrictive. Imperial glory has some subtle combat nuances that RTW cannot come close to. It is far quicker too and the results of the battles are not immediately apparent as rtw generally are.

I'm impressed and want to get my hands on the naval combat and the strategy element.

BANANAMAN
11th Apr 2005, 11:06
I'm impressed and want to get my hands on the naval combat and the strategy element.

Me too, but what about the RTS part of Imperial Glory, ey?

Pyrostudios should first put in two VERY important gameplay features before releasing:

* The pause & giving orders during pause option.
* The hold/stand ground option.

:cool:

BANANAMAN
11th Apr 2005, 11:08
And why does the demo gets stuck on me after 5 minutes of play? If the full version of Imperial Glory is like that also then it's not worth buying. :mad:

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 18:11
I know others have mentioned it, but since this forum is to improve the game the more something is said the better. The Demo looked pretty, but without the ability to pause this game is useless. The computer moves too fast and can give orders to its units all at the same time. Without the same ability, the game is wholly unbalanced. Maybe allow for a slowing down of the battles so that the infantry aren't marching 100 meters every ten seconds, NFL players would love to be able to move that fast. I know Pigeon will say, "your just a noob who can't hack it." Well, I've been playing nothing but strategy games for almost 20 years so if that is a noob then so be it. But the difference between strategy games and horde rushing games, e.g. warhammer, warcraft, starcraft, is the ability to actually conduct tactics and battle plans. Some would argue that rushing is a skill, and in some games it works, but ask the Chinesse and Russians what happens when you charge head first into a field of fire. Death. If this game is going for any kind of realism it's way off of the mark, cannon should have canister, cavalry should not be able to rush through the so called squares and go straight for the cannon without losing a man. One "whiff of grapeshot" would mow them down on a Napoleonic battlefield. Also, the dragoons shouldn't be able to shoot as far, or farther, than musketeers. By definition Dragoons are mounted infantry, meaning that when they fire they are dismounted, they were useful for their mobility. While it is correct that this ability was eventually traded in to make them more like a heavy cav, they were not able to sit around and pump shot after shot into the enemies ranks. Reloadiing a gun from horseback was hard in the Civil war days with revolvers and shotguns, in Napoleonic days it was well nigh impossible. Was looking forward to this game for months, but unless a major overhaul is done you'll need to remove the strategy listing from this game to avoid false advertising.

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 18:29
He has just as much proof as you have, he has no proof it will be in, but you don't have proof it won't be in.

I don't really see this as ruining the industry. Believe it or not there are people who will like this game and will buy it. Are you saying they can't buy it because you don't like it? Probably not but it comes over that way.

There are also people who watch American Idle, and Lost on T.V. Just because they are hit shows, does that make them good. No. While it is a matter of taste, since you are supposed to be going for historical accuracy most of the people on this forum are disagreeing with you in saying that is is accuracte. Now I don't have a PHd, just a Masters, but as far as playability and realism go this game is off the mark. I agree you are not ruining the industry, but the efforts of this game are not endearing Eidos to me either. Obviously the two biggest problems, at least according to this forum, are canister and pause/command. You need to listen to the detractors more than the fans, angry person tells 10, happy person tells 2 thing. In a world where there aren't alot of good strategy games, we have to grasp for what we can. Please don't try and make this another game I regret being interested in.

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 18:31
At least I will:D

To Lannes09: "I hope the game inspires you to educate yourselves on the era, then you will understand why people are being so harsh."

I have read and been studying Napoleon stuff since I was 13 (few weeks I`m 22). I love the era and I want to play all these battles and I dont care if IG aint accurate compared to historybooks. So you cant say that "only ignorent play IG":D
Hope you understand my bad English

How can you possibly say what you did, and then apologize for poor grammer?

quantic
11th Apr 2005, 20:13
I've tried charging squares and my horses have been devastated pawn.

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 21:34
I've tried charging squares and my horses have been devastated pawn.
All the cav I've fought have charged through that 1 ft gap between units, in perfect formation, to attack my art without losing a man. My cav also get decimated when attacking squares.

quantic
11th Apr 2005, 23:51
You want to try killing the cavalry before they get anywhere near your guns. They are my priority enemy . Finish them off then move in on their infantry.

Tenjo_Kalle
13th Apr 2005, 22:38
Allright I have now played the two games included in the demo.

Overall impression - I like it.

The speed seem good to me, maybe maybe tweek (is that a word in english? lol) down the cav a bit?

The overlook of the battle seem good to me.

The unitsrooster at the bottom of the screen is very clear and nice.

The commandbuttons are easily used.

What I lack or couldnt find;

In totalwar series you can group units together and move them in formation and so on (sorry for comparing to totalwar but its impossible not to do it) a feture that must be included with various good commands if this is going to be a test of generals.

The click and drag of unit should be included so that I can make lines and sqaures as thick and long as I want them.

In totalwar if you press spacebar you will see markers/shadows of where you told your troops to go. This is most useful for controling your army and I think maybe not so hard to get into the game?

Morale, in the demo units fight to the death allways. This is the most important thing to make this a test of generals. A good general should be able to outmanouver and through braking enemy morale via diffrent things such as flank attacks/ flanking fire and so on bring a lesser general down with very few casulties of his own. So INCLUDE morale features please and routing troops and so on. I think someone somewhere else listed fetures that would boost or give penalties to morale.

For instance in the demo the enemy cav charge at me, I shoot it with inf and art so that at least 70% of it dies, still it hit home and kill my art - this is no good. The cav unit should have routed before it hit home making such suicide moves stupid.

Cameracontrol, a bit odd, but nothing one cant get used to.

And please make the multiplayer for more then 2 vs 2 battles. If older games can have 4 on 4 why cant new games have that? Why is the development going backwards???

I ended up writing more negative stuff then positive but my overall feel was very positive. I think the basic of the game has very good potential now you need to put those extra fetures in there that will make this a "must have".

TenjoKalle

Sveland
14th Apr 2005, 07:33
god the fact that the men cant march in order without reorganizing and halting to wait for the other units to catch up piss me the hell off. Have the infantry and cavalry slow down for the artillary instead of rushing to the position and waiting 10 minutes for the arty. to reach there... horrible

Tenjo_Kalle
14th Apr 2005, 08:20
god the fact that the men cant march in order without reorganizing and halting to wait for the other units to catch up piss me the hell off.

Have the infantry and cavalry slow down for the artillary instead of rushing to the position and waiting 10 minutes for the arty. to reach there... horrible


Umm, would you mind elaborate a bit, I dont get what you mean.

Did you find a way to group units and make groupmoves? Or is it the lack of this you are complaining about?

Do you want all units to march at the same speed? Are you pissed that artillery is slower then other units? Do you want to be able to give your cav and inf units the order to move at the pase of artillery?

Please explain your points a bit more.

Kalle

BANANAMAN
14th Apr 2005, 17:21
There are no hold/stand ground option and no pause & giving orders during pause option: Now, THAT'S horrible. :mad:

Tenjo_Kalle
14th Apr 2005, 18:30
Hold/stand ground should be a possible order i agree which might also give a slight defencebonus if attacked in hand to hand combat.

Paus I dont really care about but in singleplayer I can understand that some wants it. DO NOT however include any pause button to the multiplayer.

Kalle

Sveland
14th Apr 2005, 18:32
Did you find a way to group units and make groupmoves? Or is it the lack of this you are complaining about?


That wasnt the problem, I already know this. :)



Do you want all units to march at the same speed? Are you pissed that artillery is slower then other units? Do you want to be able to give your cav and inf units the order to move at the pase of artillery?


Yes, I ment that the infantry and cavalry march at thier normal pace even when grouped under tactics or any other formation given. The problem with this is that because they march at thier normal pace, they get out of thier formation and have to stop in order to wait for each other unit to catch up. What I wanted was that each unit when grouped would move at the same pace, such as the cavalry and infantry slowing down to the pace of the artillary so they can stay in formation when marching.

MJG=1492=
14th Apr 2005, 22:10
I like the idea behind the game. I do not like unites rotating without orders, they need a stand ground order. The stacking of units one behind the other and firing is ok, it strenghtens your center and protects from calvery charges a little better.

Tenjo_Kalle
15th Apr 2005, 00:10
Ah I understand Sveland, that would be a nice feture indeed :)

Sveland sounds as Swedish as Kalle, är det så? :)

Kalle

Sveland
15th Apr 2005, 00:42
Ah I understand Sveland, that would be a nice feture indeed :)

Sveland sounds as Swedish as Kalle, är det så? :)

Kalle


hahahaha, actually the reason I chose the name Sveland for all my online activities was by mistake. Theres a game called Europa Universalis II, and I always liked playing as the Swedish, and the capitol province was Svealand or something very similar to that and I chose that, but realized that I spelt it wrong.. But I stuck with that name because it sounded cool. :D :D

glsapp23
15th Apr 2005, 02:39
MY GOD THAT CAMPAIGN MAP SUCKS!!! PLEASE THEY REALLY REALLY NEED TO HAVE A LOOK AT RTW'S STRATEGY MAP!! but this really does look like just another fancy battle engine strapped on some crappy strategy map :( :mad: :(

screamingpalm
17th Apr 2005, 19:49
Potential is there...needs some work still IMO. Casualties are rediculous, I hope this is just like that in the demo.

I disagree with Tenjo Kalle in click-drag to make formations thicker....I would rather have units be in 3-rank line or 2-rank line as they were historically. (IMO it would look silly to see the Brits with deep masses...should be a "thin red line")

Units should rout off the map when they break unless you have a commander who can successfully rally them, this might help with the casualty issue. I hope the game will have historical generals with their corresponding stats and mannerisms.

I agree with someone else who posted about how enemy cavalry rediculously squeezes between two formations of square I had formed close together to attack another unit behind them.

Overall the game felt too fast-paced, I felt the units were moving around a little fast, but maybe it's just something I need to get used to. I, like others, am used to the camera from RTW, but thats a very minor issue I can live with in comparison.

EDIT: Would also like to see fatigue put in.

mob
17th Apr 2005, 19:58
EDIT: Would also like to see fatigue put in.

its in but crap

Les The Lionheart
17th Apr 2005, 20:57
They regain their strength faster than Olympic runners.

HellAngel_666
17th Apr 2005, 21:24
and lose it faster then a baby would doing a 15 mile run ;)

screamingpalm
18th Apr 2005, 05:15
After playing it (demo) a few more times, Im really starting to like it- aside from the insane casualties. I preordered my copy, its fun even with its' flaws, but I hope casulaties, stand ground, and morale and fatigue all get fixed. Overall it looks promising.

Tenjo_Kalle
18th Apr 2005, 09:44
Comanders with diffrent stats and abilities will be hard to balance in mp game I think. Ususally its hard enough to balance the units.

Apart from that commanders with the ability to rally fleeing troops is prolly a good thing allthough routing troops that are not chased should maybe be able to regroup without having to click a commander and tell him to rally troops.

About the click and drag. Well if we can click and drag its free for everyone to use the lines they think look/work good historical or not. The game is about altering history anyways :p

If I, as supreme british commander (i.e. player) want my british troops to stand in 10 deep formation then it should be possible for me to order this since im commander. Wellington could make such an order if he wanted to - then why should I not be able to do so?

regards

TenjoKalle

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 01:34
Quite honestly, I found the demo to be mediocre. I was expecting a RTW like battle engine, but instead you get some complicated, yet unadvanced, knock off on the Total War series. The controls are lacking, and the revolving camera becomes un-maneuverable. The infantry are idiotic to say the least: with no stand ground option, they scramble like homicidal barbarians. Cavalry, which are extremely underpowered, rout at the very sight of the square formation. However, the tedious gameplay is overshadowed by the superb graphics, and I suffered little lad with my Radeon X800. The game is also adicting once you get used to the contols. Amidst the good and bad aspects of this game, I'm still unsure if I'm going to expend $40.

I deeply apoligize for my ranting. :D

screamingpalm
19th Apr 2005, 01:49
Really my biggest issue with the game so far is the casualties. I hope its just the demo, but there needs to be units routing off the map like in the TW series. This I am hoping would lead to more realistic stats as far as casualties. Never in that time period did armies take 100% casualties. It just seems silly when playing the demo that I have to kill every last man, doesn't seem realistic at all. I agree with what you are saying about a unit being able to rally, especially if not being chased, but the morale of every unit is like the Old Guard as it is now. If the developers dont fix this, Im sure a modder will, so I am not too worried.

As far as the click-drag, it's a matter of taste/preference I suppose. I would rather stay in keeping with historical accuracy and how the various nations trained their respective units, but that is just my personal preference. To me its all part of the rock-paper-scissors effect of column-line-square which I enjoy.

Commanders with different personalities and stats are something I really enjoyed about this period, I dont want balance honestly. Its always fun to read about generals like Marshal Ney who would be driven battle mad. I wish they could make British cavalry go battle mad as they did historically. That would piss off some gamers not being able to control their frenzied cav lol.

BaronVonSnakPak
19th Apr 2005, 02:02
swiveling camera?

ive played the demo maybe...15 times now and i have yet to see the camera swivel, revolve, turn, anything. i even tried using the middle mouse button, but it does nothing. scrolling it obviously zooms in and out, but no turning.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:21
swiveling camera?

ive played the demo maybe...15 times now and i have yet to see the camera swivel, revolve, turn, anything. i even tried using the middle mouse button, but it does nothing. scrolling it obviously zooms in and out, but no turning.

Note that the arrow keys, left and right, cause the swivel.

BaronVonSnakPak
19th Apr 2005, 02:22
Note that the arrow keys, left and right, cause the swivel.

then dont press em!


seriously, i have yet come across a need to swivel the camera. the battles take place on open areas, so youre view isnt obstructed or anything.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:26
I have mixed opinions as to the concept of pausing. Pausing is great during massive, grand-scale battles, however this game's limit of 2000 men doesn't really permit masssive battles, rendering the need to pause unnessasary. Furthermore, pausing blaitinly disables realsim, as leaders never historicaly were able to pause, or put the battle on easy difficulty. I do agree that pausing is for "noobs" however it does have its convieniant side. It's mostly personal preference, and even if there is pause and command tool, you don't have to use it. Comprimise!

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:30
then dont press em!

You do have a point, but I personally like to swivel. So I guess it's my problem, not your's. Sorry!

screamingpalm
19th Apr 2005, 02:47
Just realized I forgot to add another wish: skirmishers. Please let light infantry form skirmish formation!

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 03:03
Just realized I forgot to add another wish: skirmishers. Please let light infantry form skirmish formation!

I do believe that the German's have the Jagar, which is probrably as close to skirmishers as you can get. Assuming by the limitations in the demo, no skirmish formation will be added unless the recent delay is looking to add it.

Bernard
19th Apr 2005, 06:31
I do believe that the German's have the Jagar, which is probrably as close to skirmishers as you can get. Assuming by the limitations in the demo, no skirmish formation will be added unless the recent delay is looking to add it.

The Austrians also have Jager soldiers in the demo. Great Britain has light infantry and Riflemen as well, although as has already been pointed out, the game treats them as simply more blocks of infantry with a few varying skins and stats, rather than as actual skirmishers.

Tenjo_Kalle
19th Apr 2005, 08:49
Someone said he dont care about balance as long as he gets his commanders with extra abilities.

Well I sure hope you are talking singleplayer because then I dont care one bit - I can even see it would be fun.

But if you are talking multiplayer and saying that you dont care about balance then I can not interpret that in any other way then that you are trying to destroy the game. There can be no (successful) tournaments no leagues or ladders and no use for clans and such things if there is no balance. Winning a multiplayer battle should mainly be about skill using your army not mainly about skill picking your army.


seriously, i have yet come across a need to swivel the camera. the battles take place on open areas, so youre view isnt obstructed or anything

This is another not thought through opinion. Of course there will be a need to swiwel the camera and since it is possible to do so in the demo I think it will be in the full game also, thanks for this :)

Kalle

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 12:45
I was interested to see that naval battles could be commanded by me, which is something not offered in the Total War series. But how, exactly, would the combat work? Two ships lining up side by side and pumping shell into one another doesn't sound very tactical. For someone with more experiance, is there more to naval combat than senseless vollies of shell? Any tactics? :confused:

screamingpalm
19th Apr 2005, 15:50
Hey Tenjo Kalle,

As far as balance I was thinking more as far as generals go, I can see what you are saying about balance for those who do the clan and ladder thing. I'm just probably being selfish in what I want to see in the game, which would be more geared toward historical accuracy than balance, but I understand the need for balance for those who like leagues, etc. As for the commanders, what I would like to see is varying traits i.e.: Napoleon should have a huge impact if he is on the battlefield, especially on morale. Ney should have a chance to go battle mad, Orange should be incompetent, etc. Thats what I mean about not wanting them all balanced. I would also like to see units vary in morale. Line units should not rally the same as an elite unit.

EDIT: I would have to disagree that historical accuracy would destroy the game. IMO childish clans and ditching realism for the sake of balance for some ego-driven league does more harm. If they keep it true to the period, I have no problem with them balancing it for the clannies though. Anyway, I agree that I wouldnt want things too unbalanced, however I wouldnt expect to see an Ottoman army have a "balanced" chance against Napoleon either.