PDA

View Full Version : Good game but… some remarks about the gameplay



[BlackBirdy]
6th Apr 2005, 23:56
Good game. IG becomes really interesting and strategic when I tried to win battles with a minimum of losses. However, there are some problems and I post them below.

- When the infantry is doing a range attack, they adopt the line formation and the entire formation always rotates on itself in order to face the enemy. The problem is this rotation creates holes in the defense. Why the entire formation rotates? Each man is able to rotate his own body at least at 45 degrees to shoot the enemy.

- When the cavalry is attacking infantry, the infantry adopts the square formation and this is really bad for the cavalry that generally retreats quickly. The problem is cavalry stops to retreat although they are still in the line of sight of the infantry. Why not stop a little bit further?

- I don’t see any advantages to garrison infantry in farm or forest. OK, they win in range attack and protection but it seems the number of shooters is less important than the number of shooters in line formation for example. In forest, infantry is totally dispersed with maybe 4 or 5 men who can shoot the enemy. Is it an advantage?

- Units attack without order even when the manual attack is chosen. For example, I choose to attack the infantry with my cavalry. Enemy infantry adopts square formation. I retreat my cavalry before the fight and my infantry can easily shoot at the static enemy. The problem is I need to click 4 or 5 times on the cavalry in order to prevent them to re-attack the infantry!! :(

- Concerning the pause button. Why not? There are a lot of micromanagements during the battle and this is true if there are fights at two different locations, this is impossible to manage. This should be let to the appreciation of the players: some prefer stressed battles, some prefer take their time!! :)


EDIT: After some tests, I can say that there is a significant advantage to garrison troops in buildings or forest. These are very important strategic points.

Sveland
7th Apr 2005, 00:38
Hello first off I would like to say since the movie The Patriot came out I've always been obsessed about Napoleonic warfare and wanted a game just like this. I completely agree with BlackBirdy after playing the demo myself.

In addition to what he mentioned, I would like to ask several questions and make a few comments:

- Is there a way to group men together so you can move units of men in a pre-arranged formation so you wont have to line up each regiment one by one?

- Is there friendly fire? I didnt seem to see my own men being mowed down by another regiment directly beind it shooting a volley.

- Shouldn't Generals be on the field too? Napoleon himself was on the front lines with his men helping aim the Artillary cannons and such.

- Drummers? Flag bearers?

EDIT: - Why is there no stand ground command? I hated it when my men started running off toward the enemy and keep messing up thier formations I set them to?

Overall I think it's quite a nice game, I just hope that there will be some more additions to the game before its release. Thanks and have a good one

LondonCalling
7th Apr 2005, 01:03
First off, the Last Of The Mohicans> The Patriot. If you haven't watched it, I suggest you do. Second, I think the lack of a pause button gives you much more action and is much at-the-moment thinking. This game seems to be more action packed in comparison to Rome Total War. With time, you will learn to micro manage your units, which I believe, keeps you on your toes and never the lack of action. As for the retreating, infantry retreat against squared infantry, which I think is a bug and should be addressed as soon as possible (as this is historically inaccurate and very annoying in game).

Psycho Pigeon
7th Apr 2005, 01:15
- Is there a way to group men together so you can move units of men in a pre-arranged formation so you wont have to line up each regiment one by one?

Well, i think i know what you're on about. When your in a game have all your infantry selected then click the ' Tactics ' button, it doesn't look like a button but if you click it group formations with show up.

Sveland
7th Apr 2005, 04:08
Well, i think i know what you're on about. When your in a game have all your infantry selected then click the ' Tactics ' button, it doesn't look like a button but if you click it group formations with show up.

yeah you got the idea pretty much except i want to make custom formations, like in rome total war if you know what i mean

Guevara
7th Apr 2005, 08:18
drummers WOULD BE SO AWESOME!! Totally ADD to the immersivness!! 1 drummer boy in a battalion! uggh. It would be like RTW's flagbearer and the captain. Man that was the first thing i looked for when i loaded the game, a leader and a drummer.. maaan u cant have a game like this without a drummer. Even more immersive would be the drummer changing beats with the different orders. ugh. I hope this isnt another RTW game that is rushed and poorly executed. I almost threw my rtw cd out after about a month cuz i was so dissapointed. Good AI is what im looking for in this game, both tactically and diplomacy.

Sveland
7th Apr 2005, 23:19
yeah he's right, we need a drummerboy, officer, and flag bearer... man this game is becoming worse every time i read a post about something the game is missing.......some realism we were promised....

bah but sorry guys i'm acting like a spoiled little brat, its just that i've always wanted a game like this and when it actually comes true i'm totally dissapointed since its missing so many essential things involved in 19th century warfare.

Psycho Pigeon
7th Apr 2005, 23:28
Man they can't say this game's authentic and not include the drummer boys, they already have flags don't they? although they hover around by them selfs then bounce up and down when you click on them....hmm maybe they didn't say this game was guna be authentic? lol.

Guevara
8th Apr 2005, 03:28
agrre sveland. when i read a new post the game points keep going down. i just pray there is a stand ground option

[BlackBirdy]
12th Apr 2005, 21:55
Sorry if this issue was raised earlier but I notice something unfair:

The cavalry when attacking one squared formation retreats. The problem is they sometimes retreat behind the lines where we put generally the cannons. When the cavalry is able to fight again, they can easily destroy the cannons. This situation is unfair because the cavalry is normally weaker because they retreat and finally, they get an advantage because they can easily dismantle the cannons. I think they should retreat to the point they come from and far enough so that they are not in the line of sight of the infantry.


Also, is there any use of the tactics buttons with the formations? When we assign formation to troops, there are so much space between two troops that any enemy cavalry can easily reach the point they want.

[BlackBirdy]
13th Apr 2005, 02:47
Four questions:


How to follow one troop in its movements?


When we want to move for example two troops over one area, how can we know the finale destination of the first troop in order to place correctly the second troop?


Is it possible to have a description of each troop when we put the cursor of the mouse on the small troop pictures at the bottom of the screen (the same description we have when we put the cursor on one troop on the battle field)?


Is it possible to have a signal when a friendly troop is being attacked?


EDIT: To follow one troop in its movements, we can double click on its small icon at the bottom of the screen.

Sveland
13th Apr 2005, 05:35
they better fix this stuff or else

Czar
13th Apr 2005, 06:23
You have to wonder how much Pyro and / or Eidos paid for "professional" beta testers...

Particularly when they could have had [BlackBirdy] for free? :D

HellAngel_666
13th Apr 2005, 20:26
lol when they could have had the DEMO as the beta tester. :rolleyes: i think we were the testers as we saved them money :D . but if they had payed for testers that we don't know of they they should NEVER test another game as they STINK as testers. they should also return the money they made off of testing this game, if there were testers.

Mike_B
14th Apr 2005, 05:52
It's the testers job to see or it works not to see or the features that you want are in it :p

Gonzodave
14th Apr 2005, 15:14
It's the testers job to see or it works not to see or the features that you want are in it

Odd, when I worked in QA for a developer the Eidos testers were continually putting up bug reports of gameplay and design changes they wanted.

Czar
14th Apr 2005, 16:19
It's the testers job to see or it works not to see or the features that you want are in it :p

:rolleyes:
Sorry @m but Gameplay and Balance are a part of the process.
Although I will admit that it is a later part of the process.

I also feel it is a part of the process best served by gamers and not by "techies".
Gamers will also find bugs in places tech people would never even think to look :p
Have a look at the thread about killing the cows and sheep for example... :rolleyes:

I did suggest this before you know...

[BlackBirdy]
14th Apr 2005, 23:56
I did some tests concerning the speed of the units.

Not surprisingly, the speed of the infantry in line formation is lower than that of the infantry in column formation (walk and run).

For the cavalry, the speed is the same whatever the formation.


Now, between troops of different nature but same kind (cavalry or infantry), the speed can be different, especially when running.

For example for the cavalry, we have, from the fastest to the slowest: hussars > lancers > household cavalry > lifeguards.

The factors that play a role in the speed of the troops seem to be the quality of the defense (better defense, slower) and also if they have shotguns or not.

Now, I understand when my household cavalry, when trying to escape the enemy, were caught easily by the lancers.

This parameter (the speed) is as important as the line of sight and would be a great aid if it appears in the description of the troops.



And as told somewhere else, a button that constrains all troops to move at the same speed will be very :cool:.


EDIT: Good News. When two troops with different speed (cavalry / infantry, infantry / canon, cavalry / canon) are walking, they will wait for each other. When they are running, they adopt their own speed. This is rational. Good point for Pyro :)

Lt.Phoenix
16th Apr 2005, 03:20
Is it just me, or is this forum 95% about whining? Every single possible thing you could ever imagine, a game doesn't have it, IT"S NOT REALISTIC, and IT'S CR@P, well guess what, I love the game. I see some people not just complaining that the game doesn't have stuff, but actually making the game better. I guess all the productive people are somewhere else though. I congratulate Berden (sorry if I spelled it wrong) on all the sort of mini-patches he has made. I'd also like to see any of you be beta testers, or actual game makers. No wonder you're not getting any responses with the comments you're making most of the time. Besides, ever heard of patches? or how about expansions? mods maybe?

The point is, if you think the game is so crappy, and are content to not actually do anything about it, why are you wasting your time here?

btw, BLACK WATCH PIPEBAND FOR THE WIN!! :D

Czar
16th Apr 2005, 12:56
... Besides, ever heard of patches? ...

Just a thought for you.

Wouldn't it be nice if they released a game that you didn't NEED to patch? :confused:

Lt.Phoenix
16th Apr 2005, 17:13
I would have to agree, but even if it didn't NEED a patch, wouldn't you want one or two? feel like a new unit? realized a certain unit is too powerful for it's own good? (as long as we don't get to W3, killed with all the nerf speaking) I agree, it would be nice if it didn't have to get it patched, but it would get to a point where they would be able to make the graphics a bit better, gameplay a bit faster, or more units on the feild at any given time. I'd say, yes, please patch it.

Czar
17th Apr 2005, 06:48
I see what you are saying:
Look, as far as I am concerned you are talking about Mods and Expansions.
Expansions come from the developers and are sometimes called patches (which IMHO) is a mistake.
Mods come from the community.
I don't object to either. They are both optional additions.

Patches on the other hand are 'fixes': hence the name 'patch'.
That is something that is not optional and is required to make a game work properly.
Good examples are the patches for DK2 (allowing you to finish the game and get through the 'The Princes' level or the patch for Evil Genius to fix, well, everything.
Patches are often a sign of a sloppy developer and / or producer who have not adequitely Beta Tested a product.
There is really no excuse for this - particularly now with the internet and Broadband connections. Any developer who ASKS will get dozens of people prepared to test a product for free (they are actually performing a service).
The counter arguement is that some of these people will contribute nothing - true. But many will contribute heaps - and help make a better game.
As for the risk of 'leaks' - there are ways around this. It has already been done without problems.

BANANAMAN
17th Apr 2005, 09:29
Sorry Lt. but I have to disagree with you dude. People in here should keep on whinning until they, Pyrostudios & Eidos, get their product, Imperial Glory, RIGHT.

People should get their money worth when buying a finnished product, but this product is not finnished, it's half finnished.

The 'whinnings' in here indicates not the amount of sales but the amount of buyers/costumers bringing Imperial Glory back from where they bought it. And that my friend indicates Imperial Glory is heading for total failure if Pyrostudios is doing nothing about it. It's simple as that.

So, us: the whinners in here are actualy providing a great service to Pyrostudios and Eidos by pointing the flaws in Imperial Glory's demo so they can do something about it early on.

So, keep on whinning, maybe they will listen maybe not. :rolleyes:

Mike_B
17th Apr 2005, 10:02
People should get their money worth when buying a finnished product, but this product is not finnished, it's half finnished.


You played a demo, how do you know what they've put in the final game.


The 'whinnings' in here indicates not the amount of sales but the amount of buyers/costumers bringing Imperial Glory back from where they bought it. And that my friend indicates Imperial Glory is heading for total failure if Pyrostudios is doing nothing about it. It's simple as that.


The whiners here are probably not even going to buy the game so they're just that whiners with too much time on their hands who just come here on their hands. There are of course exeptions such as people who post it to improve the game but that doesn't count for all of them.


So, us: the whinners in here are actualy providing a great service to Pyrostudios and Eidos by pointing the flaws in Imperial Glory's demo so they can do something about it early on.

Starting multiple threads and thus flooding the forum is not really a great service imo. Also the way same posts are constructed they're far from being helpful.


So, keep on whinning, maybe they will listen maybe not. :rolleyes:

Yeah that's the spirit :rolleyes: how about waiting for a preview/review if you want to make sure if certain features are in the game or not? If you don't like it no-one will force you to buy this.

BANANAMAN
17th Apr 2005, 10:51
And who said a reviewer would write all the things you saw as flaws? Maybe he will skip the flaw you noticed and you'll think after reading his review it's alright to buy and to your surprise the flaw is still inthere. :(

Now, something you said about whinning: how else when you're interested in this game (IG) can you let Pyrostudios know what's wrong when you don't put threads repeatly? If you put one thread or just one post then it realy won't get noticed, but if you overflow the forum with your 'whinnings' then there is at least a chance they will notice.

And they (Pyrostudios & Eidos) should pay us :rolleyes: :D (the whinning fans) for our great service to them pointing the flaws their testers oversaw. Now, Pyrostudios & Eidos when reading this forum, know what the flaws are and they can do something early on about those flaws, meaning when they realy do something about those flaws people wont bring back IG from where they bought it just after the purchase.

A pc game being a flop/failure is not based on the amount of sales which many pc game developers nowadays think, a pc game being a flop/failure is based on the amount of buyers who bring the game back from where they bought it for their money back.

Yes, and of course I know the difference between demo and the full version of a pc game but they always cut down the amount of what you can play in a demo. I never saw of a pc game's demo where they cut down on the gameplay's controls. And if Pyrostudios & Eidos make the demo on the level of ATI Catalyst 5.1 who can garantee they wont do the same with the full version of IG?

And it's not just Pyrostudios which is producing a lot of 'whinnings' (lol :rolleyes: ) and complaints (grr :mad: ), it's most of the pc game developers of the strategy/rts/wargame genre who produce a lot of 'whinnings' and complaints also, this inso much that I fear consumers/gamers of this genre would at a breakingpoint get enough of this drama and would leave the strategy/rts/wargame genre to other pc game genres where they (pc game developers & publishers) set the software quality a little bit higher and where they take their consumers and those interested a little bit more seriously.

Hell, maybe people will even flee to the console gaming where there is no such thing as flaws, patches and drama (whinnings :rolleyes: ).

Czar
17th Apr 2005, 11:06
And who said a reviewer would write all the things you saw as flaws? Maybe he will skip the flaw you noticed and you'll think after reading his review it's alright to buy and to your surprise the flaw is still inthere. :(
...


Anyone here remember Driv3r?

Many gamers were surprised to find that despite GREAT reviews the game basically suxed :mad:

Average Reviewer Rating 8+ to 9 (IIRC)
Average Game Player Rating 5 to 7 :confused:

Many players asked how such a fundimentally FLAWED and BUGGY game could get such good reviews?

Turns out that what happens is that to get reviews publish by the release date (which is what the Developer / Publisher / Distributers want) the Reviewers are sent a Beta Copy a month or two before release (and before the game goes gold).

With that copy comes a letter saying:
"In the final copy we will fix this, and this, and that... and the game will have this, and that and this as well..."
The reviewers must then take it on faith that this will in fact happen.
The Editors have pressure put on them by their bosses and owners (who are often the Publishers and Distributers :rolleyes: ) to publish favourable articles.

But what if these things are not fixed?

The consumer gets ripped off. :mad:

And that is why you should not trust reviews.

Mike_B
17th Apr 2005, 11:45
If we can get our hands on a preview copy you can compile a list of things you want to know. We'll check it and let you know. Based on that you can decide wheter or not you want the game or not.

The thing is of course that what many here see as flaws are not necessary that. The fact that there isn't a pause and command option can be for instance a design decession. If that's the case then I doubt that Pyro will recognize that as a flaw. In the end it's their game and they can make it the way they want it and you can't blame them for that. You can make suggestions but in the end it's their game and their decission.

BANANAMAN
17th Apr 2005, 12:40
No pause & giving orders during pause option is a flaw to the gamer/consumer, because a pause & giving orders during pause option is a standard rts package nowadays at the present day. Please see those who use this standard package:

* TotalWar series
* Cossacks series
* SuddenStrike series
* Blitzkrieg series
* HiddenStroke series
* And so on.

Man, for this genre a pause & giving orders during pause option is not a matter of luxury, it's a matter of standard RTS package.

So, again consciencely (designed) or unconsciencely (overlooked) it doesnt matter to the consumer/gamer, it's still a flaw.

Czar
17th Apr 2005, 14:16
Yes, but I have to agree with @m here.

IG is not TotalWar series, Cossacks series etc.

Maybe there is some design reason that there is no pause option.
In which case - not a flaw.

On the other hand - I agree that it would certainly be a bonus for (some) gamers to have that option.
But, at the end of the day, this is something Pyro should have tested to find the best option for the game - they clearly feel that they have done that - as release is coming up.

My concern is that they may have 'tested' it by using so called 'professional' testers who are not gamers. Having software that works and software that is user friendly is two seperate things :rolleyes:

But hey, too late to quibble about it now - we will wait and see.
The market will decide.

For what it is worth: IG promo boxes are on the shelf in Australia. That means release in 30-60 days (based on past experiance).
That means it has probably already gone gold.

BANANAMAN
17th Apr 2005, 14:46
Yes, but I have to agree with @m here.

IG is not TotalWar series, Cossacks series etc.

Maybe there is some design reason that there is no pause option.
In which case - not a flaw.

On the other hand - I agree that it would certainly be a bonus for (some) gamers to have that option.
But, at the end of the day, this is something Pyro should have tested to find the best option for the game - they clearly feel that they have done that - as release is coming up.

My concern is that they may have 'tested' it by using so called 'professional' testers who are not gamers. Having software that works and software that is user friendly is two seperate things :rolleyes:

But hey, too late to quibble about it now - we will wait and see.
The market will decide.

For what it is worth: IG promo boxes are on the shelf in Australia. That means release in 30-60 days (based on past experiance).
That means it has probably already gone gold.

Sorry Czar, but I dont agree with you either, because those other pc games were just an example, but they are like IG in the same RTS/Strategy/Wargame genre. And in the RTS/Strategy/Wargame genre the standard package now is to have a pause & giving orders during pause option. Standard package, do you understand what that is? lol. :D

But, okey no problem. I have no saying in that. Consumers/gamers of the RTS/Strategy/Wargame genre never had any saying anyway so nor do I, I should have known. :rolleyes:

Oststar
18th Apr 2005, 06:30
Hey all, n00b's opinion here.

I downloaded the demo and played it, and I was stunned. The units have energy, morale and no health bar. The realism is quite high if you go back to even last year's Rise of Nations. I noticed a few faults but i'll attribute them to problems of being realeased before the game is ready.

The lack of an officer was conspicuous, as was the bouncing flag. I'd like to see an officer added and the flag made smaller and attached to a soldier. Having said that the Flag is an interface icon, not a part of the formation in the game. It's unnesscessary IMHO as there are enough indicators without it and when in melees you can't do or see much anyway. With realism being an issue the flags would be best removed or placed on a soldier, in the end it's not a gameplay issue. The officers is an issue because at one stage my mouse stopped working (ball mouse, go figure) and I lost control of a cavalry charge and couldn't move my infantry to where the weight of battle was. Given the nature of Cyrenia (Easy when properly positioned, impossible otherwise) it was enough to cost me a cavalry battalion and two infantry battalions. My point is that it occured to me that it was equivelant to the loss of communication in battle, which made me wonder how I was communicating with a battalion without officers. Having an officer would be nice, but not a major issue for me.

The Drummer is another matter: not all armies still had drummers at that stage and in many battle's they'd have been left behind. I'd still like to see one though, but only a minor issue IMHO.

I was a little irritated by the constant shifting of positions by the infantry battalions, especially on Cyrenacia where cavalry is always trying to outflank. The infantry should be able to fire in a wider arc and should be ordered to stand ground even at the cost of less men firing on one area. Also i'd like to be able to regroup units that have been shattered; on Hanover I had three battalions of infantry with 30,20,10 or there abouts, i'd have liked to add the battalions together rather than send them piecemeal into the house.

A pause button would be a bad idea IMHO as IG so far seems to be dedicated towards the rush and struggle of real 19th century battles and the problems of micromanagement are a big part of the game.

As for the comment about whiners... EA is releasing a new Battlefield game soon, but i'll be one who wont buy it because of EA's track record. They ignore their community and mistreat the buyers: the forums for bf1942 were swamped with complaints about the imbalances left in the game and the flaws of the useless 1.61b patch. There was originally a 1.7 patch lined up for bf1942 but EA killed it and considerable popularity too. Now EA is getting the studio, (DICE) to cut promised content and there appears to be no demo. With this mistreatment of fans EA is deeply hated even by loyal fans of the BF series. (One member's sig features the letters EA morphing into a swastika, another reads DICE "Destroying Intelligent games sinCe EA took over")

My point is that if Pryo/Eidos ignores the community the community will not buy their games (there have been a few threads urging people not to buy games from EA). These are minor issues, especially Officers, flagbearers and Drummers which are cosmetic additions unless the officer has some effects. The use of whiners and especially the comment that many wont buy the game, is offensive. Most aren't whining they're asking for more content, and i'll bet most will buy the game, I will, I intend Imperial Glory to be the only game I buy in 2005.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:12
' When the infantry is doing a range attack, they adopt the line formation and the entire formation always rotates on itself in order to face the enemy. The problem is this rotation creates holes in the defense. Why the entire formation rotates? Each man is able to rotate his own body at least at 45 degrees to shoot the enemy.

I absolutely concur with this statement.Why should the entire line traverse, if they can simply turn a degree or two? Either the infantry lack ligitamate leadership, or they're just plain idiotic. The A.I. also needs to be completely remade, whether it be for their suicidal tendencies, low brain capacity, or daunting lack of tactic. They can't see a second into the future!

The infantry also have unlimited energy, even on rations!

Lt.Phoenix
19th Apr 2005, 03:14
Actually, I believe that the ability for them to all do a stationary right wheel with their arms in position, would make them very smart. And if you think this should happen, could you mind explaining how they should make it happen exactly? would you rather they don't even move individually, but just a big rectangle, with guns firing from it? Oh, and no different colours, just a big black rectangle with stats. That sounds like fun to me.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 15:21
Actually, I believe that the ability for them to all do a stationary right wheel with their arms in position, would make them very smart. And if you think this should happen, could you mind explaining how they should make it happen exactly? would you rather they don't even move individually, but just a big rectangle, with guns firing from it? Oh, and no different colours, just a big black rectangle with stats. That sounds like fun to me.

In answer to Lt.Phoenix, I was irritated by the fact that infantry have to turn and completey face an enemy that is at 45 degrees when they could simply all turn their guns 45 degrees. Obviously, they need to have a stationary wheel to turn if they are firing at a target greater than 45 degrees, yet in several situations I was frustrated that they shifted completely to fire at a target that was only a dozen degrees to the left. This left gaps in my line, which could have been easily exploited by enemy cavalry. In this situation, a complete shift made absolutely no sense.

[BlackBirdy]
20th Apr 2005, 23:04
For both missions of the demo, the beginning is kind of long.

For the first mission, british troops have to go to the bridge, cross it and go to the farm where the austria troops are waiting. It takes time and it's not really exciting. We can make troops run but it's better to make them walk since fresh troops are better to fight.

For the second mission, same thing happens if the austria troops are chosen: a looong trip through the desert.

One thing is good in RTW: the possibility to choose the speed of the game. Slow speed when a lot of orders has to be given or when several fights occur at different locations and fast speed when, for example, a long distance has to be completed. Another interesting feature will be the possibility, if the orders to give are numerous, to reduce the speed until the pause.

saddletank
21st Apr 2005, 08:58
If we can get our hands on a preview copy you can compile a list of things you want to know. We'll check it and let you know. Based on that you can decide wheter or not you want the game or not.

Please see my new post about points raised that I think require work. Hope you can get a preview copy and give us some feedback.

Gonzodave
21st Apr 2005, 15:36
The realism is quite high if you go back to even last year's Rise of Nations

That's like saying Whipped Cream Lesbians 11 is quite tasteful if you go back to last years Women Who Love Horses.

colmde
21st Apr 2005, 15:55
Regarding the pausing and giving orders thing... Yes from a game balance thing, it is a nice feature, but I have to admit to enjoying listening to the orders being shouted from all over the place amidst the chaos of gunfire.... You don't really get that when pausing and giving orders.

One thing I noticed is the lack of a "morale" feature... Soldiers don't seem to run away even if they are reduced to the last man in their unit. Though maybe historically this wasn't a factor at this time period...

Also the controls seem a little awkward, maybe because I am used to R:TW. Maybe in the full version you'll be able to change this...

BANANAMAN
21st Apr 2005, 16:04
I've played the demo a thousands time now and my conclusion is that a pause & giving orders during pause is not needed.

A specific hold/stand ground option is nice but is not realy needed. Yet again, a specific hold/stand ground option would be nice though. :)

Shearer9
22nd Apr 2005, 02:15
First off, the Last Of The Mohicans> The Patriot.

off topic, but whats the name of that film with the black regiment in the union army?? they all try to storm that fort and get blown to bits at the end.

Irish2
22nd Apr 2005, 02:37
off topic, but whats the name of that film with the black regiment in the union army?? they all try to storm that fort and get blown to bits at the end.

Glory, damn fine film.

saddletank
22nd Apr 2005, 12:05
I've played the demo a thousands time now and my conclusion is that a pause & giving orders during pause is not needed.

We know that you don't need it Bananaman, but please respect those customers who do, and who are asking for one. You don't have to use it if it's there but if it isn't there, those who do need it haven't got the option.

Did that make sense? :)

Tenjo_Kalle
22nd Apr 2005, 13:31
It makes perfect sence.
Now if they only include morale also so i can send Banamans troops running from the field id be most happy :)

Kalle

Tenjo_Kalle
22nd Apr 2005, 13:32
No pausing during multiplayer though :)

Kalle

saddletank
22nd Apr 2005, 21:12
I don't know any MP game with a SP pause function that works in the MP side of the game. That would seriously suck because losers would just pause the game all the time to annoy their opponents.

[BlackBirdy]
24th Apr 2005, 13:14
In one of the last screenshots, there is a new icon in the Tactics panel. Hold position order ??? Maybe yes :)


http://img241.echo.cx/img241/7954/001260131zc.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

BANANAMAN
24th Apr 2005, 15:12
I sincerely hope so. :cool:

[BlackBirdy]
30th Apr 2005, 02:54
Against cannons protected by squared infantry, enemy infantry conducted by A.I. will try to engage a hand-to-hand combat with the cannons.
After several unsuccessful attempts to pass the deadly squared formation, enemy infantry SHOULD adopt the line formation for a range attack.

mob
30th Apr 2005, 10:33
i wondor how hard it will be for the modders to the most important touch on the game


GROUPINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


we cant play this game without groups
i wont resort to insulting you eidos but wtf were you thinking making a game without it?

[BlackBirdy]
2nd May 2005, 02:45
OK, after more than one thousand games, I make this statement:

We need a time accelerator or a quick SAVE/LOAD button.

3-4 minutes: this is the time all Austrians troops need to cross the desert to have in view the English troops. This is too long.

Oststar
2nd May 2005, 03:14
That's like saying Whipped Cream Lesbians 11 is quite tasteful if you go back to last years Women Who Love Horses.

Only if all movies were tasteless porno's, therefore the best IG could have been would be Married Couple doing it in tasteful poses and the worst is Tibetan monks raping their own two year old rape children and forcing their sex slaves to **** baby animals

jeffdan9
2nd May 2005, 19:12
I think this game is pretty good as it is, but morale & more units would help. I was very entertained by the game. But the great game is coming out, TAFN's preview looks amazing, & this would shourly be a great game to come!

Yorkie
3rd May 2005, 14:51
seen the answer .. sry peeps

[BlackBirdy]
9th May 2005, 23:41
IG is a very good game. I play a lot the demo and this is a good sign. However, some issues are really boring and I hope they will be fixed one day.


TROOP MOVES WITHOUT ORDER :mad:
Formation in square will move for no reason sometimes.


TROOP DISOBEYS ORDERS :mad:
Doesn't attack the targeted troop but the nearest one for example.


SQUARED FORMATION INEFFICIENT :mad:
Enemy will sometimes manage to go through the square with no problem.


If troops don't react as they are supposed to react, the tactics / strategies are reduced.

FEARLESS
10th May 2005, 06:46
Great many interesting comments regarding troop movement that do need addressing. But does Pyro Studios read these forums. It would be nice to see a topic from the designers on the points raised with the troop movements and whether these have been corrected in the release or will be in the patch. I think what I have read and seen has put this game on par with RTW or hopefully even higher! :)

saddletank
10th May 2005, 08:20
does Pyro Studios read these forums.

Yes. Or at least someone who speaks to them does. :)

I understand they are paying attention to various user requests and debates, no idea what they plan to do with our mass whingings but at least we aren't talking to an empty room.

Czar
10th May 2005, 10:13
Yes. Or at least someone who speaks to them does. :)

I understand they are paying attention to various user requests and debates, no idea what they plan to do with our mass whingings but at least we aren't talking to an empty room.

What they did...

Past tense. The game has gone Gold IIRC.

saddletank
10th May 2005, 12:24
The game has gone Gold IIRC.

Ever heard of a patch?

Czar
10th May 2005, 12:56
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=478241&postcount=6

I knew I would use that post again ;)

jaywalker2309
10th May 2005, 13:19
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=478241&postcount=6

I knew I would use that post again ;)

The whole game works.. as you say, to add content or adjust difficulty or enhance things based on consumer feedback (good) - to fix issues because it `simply doesnt work` (bad) :)

saddletank
10th May 2005, 23:11
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=478241&postcount=6

I knew I would use that post again ;)

Well, that's one viewpoint to hold I suppose but you need to live in the real world and accept that the way games developers work is to release a product and the mass user response if there are definite bugs or obvious improvements possible they issue a patch. I think Doom 1 was patched quite quickly after it's release and the PC game world has operated that way ever since (for ooh, what, 15 years at least?).

Some things you may not like will not be changed because a developer has certain aims and criteria built into his product from the early design stage and if you don't like those criteria they won't alter them just to suit you (or even a few thousand you's).

Of course if you don't like this you can always form your own software development house and write your own game releasing it in perfect never-needing-a-patch condition and meeting the exact needs of every gamer on the planet.

Easy job, eh?

Czar
11th May 2005, 00:26
...
Some things you may not like will not be changed because a developer has certain aims and criteria built into his product from the early design stage and if you don't like those criteria they won't alter them just to suit you (or even a few thousand you's)...


Yeah, that's why I am hanging around.
I had hoped for many things which it looks like will not be possible with IG.

That does not mean IG is a bad game - just that it is not exactly what I wanted. :rolleyes:
So, I will wait here and see what it is like - see what gamers think of it.
Many of the people who have seen it so far have a vested interest in it. Hardly impartial.

So, wait for player reviews then make a decision to buy or not to buy. :D

saddletank
11th May 2005, 08:39
So, wait for player reviews then make a decision to buy or not to buy. :D

Correct :) I'm witholding on purchase for a while after release for the same reason.

Villaret-Joyeuse
11th May 2005, 22:12
Exactly what I was thinking when I read some of the "preview" reviews. I'll wait for the player reviews.

Czar
12th May 2005, 01:34
He he...

Well someone had better buy it or we will all just wait and wait and wait... :D

saddletank
12th May 2005, 20:19
Heh, that would be a problem wouldn't it? But I'm sure the likes of Bananaman and mob will give us comprehensive and unbiased reviews.

Oststar
13th May 2005, 06:21
I'm buying it ASAP, I was wavering slightly over a few things but generally would have bought it, then I found out that Pyros is actually reading our feedback and it cemeted my decision. No other developer that i've heard of is doing this so it puts them head and shoulders above the rest.

saddletank
13th May 2005, 08:25
Oststar, please give us a review of the game as soon as you can then.

Commisar Adam
13th May 2005, 21:29
I know I've taken the pessimistic side for the past few months, after a more extensive look into the demo I've acquired a love, wait, an obsession for the game. A few points:
-The A.I. seems to learn from its mistakes. Every time I play the Cyrencia level, they find a new way to envelope my army. This, unlike RTW, makes the A.I. adapt to your tactics, not just the tactics that it has been programmed to do.
-Unlike most games, tthe artillery has actually proven to be effective. Although it suffers limited traverse and slow target acquirment, its effectiveness against columns of enemy is undoubted.
-Cavalry doesn't rule the field. Unlike cavalry of RTW, cavalry doesn't trample any form of infantry. Cavalry is good at envelpoment and destroying artillery, but you can't rely on it.
-The games formations are ligitamate, however a lack of custom formations makes it hard to organize men to your likeing. The square is unmenuverable, the line is too vunerable, and the column has no firepower.
- Negatively, almost every battle ends with both armies completely destroyed. This will make offensives difficult to coordinate. Also the economic penalties of replacing every army after they enter a battle must be incredibly tedious. Hopefully, resouces will be abundant.

Despite the several errors, the game is certainly enjoyable. It is certainly worth $40.