PDA

View Full Version : Postponded! Yay



HellAngel_666
11th Apr 2005, 17:07
now 5/17/05 YES! looks like well be seeing those changes!!! :D

mob
11th Apr 2005, 17:16
yep i can save for it now

BANANAMAN
11th Apr 2005, 17:30
OOOOOH??????! :eek:

Is that true?? YEEEEHAH! :)

Say, from where did you get the info.?, from which interview? Are they realy going to implement the two features: pause & giving orders during pause AND hold/stand ground??? I REALY HOPE SO! :)

They (Pyrostudio) has to, they know it, otherwise nobody would buy their stuff (Imperial Glory).

mob
11th Apr 2005, 17:50
pausing is for noobs who cant handle the termoil of an epic battle if they do i wont use it but it better not be an online feature for one person to soley be able to pause it or the host for that matter but well done eados

zzxxcc
11th Apr 2005, 17:53
From what distributer(s) does this change in release date relate to?

In Canada, Amazon.ca has already been selling the game (with a 1-2 week shipping delay) for several days now and the amazon-us site's release date remains unchanged. And that's not to mention it's avalibility overseas(?).

My order is actually already in queue and at this point, I'd be suprised if I did not receive it within this month.

Unless this news of a release date change comes from the company level, I'll assume this is more likely to do with a local distribution problem from a single outlet retail chain, that will not effect the majority

BANANAMAN
11th Apr 2005, 18:00
pausing is for noobs who cant handle the termoil of an epic battle if they do i wont use it but it better not be an online feature for one person to soley be able to pause it or the host for that matter but well done eados

Say, whom are you calling names in here?! :mad: Someone ban this dude! :p

krazed
11th Apr 2005, 19:26
pausing is for noobs who cant handle the termoil of an epic battle if they do i wont use it but it better not be an online feature for one person to soley be able to pause it or the host for that matter but well done eados


calling people noobs is for noobs :rolleyes:

Sveland
11th Apr 2005, 19:37
HUZZAH! HUZZAH! Looks like this is gonna be good

HellAngel_666
11th Apr 2005, 19:52
dude stop with them negitive waves man! all you talk about is them negitive waves! anyways i say it on my way to the IG union at gamespot! when i typed in imperial glory it said 5/17/05.

pausing is for tactically inclined who don't like fast paced games anf have no sense for a need of speed. also calling people noobs is a nubish move.

pawnsacrifice
11th Apr 2005, 19:55
dude stop with them negitive waves man! all you talk about is them negitive waves! anyways i say it on my way to the IG union at gamespot! when i typed in imperial glory it said 5/17/05.

pausing is for tactically inclined who don't like fast paced games anf have no sense for a need of speed. also calling people noobs is a nubish move.
way to go brother, watch your spelling though hehe

HellAngel_666
11th Apr 2005, 20:27
lol i was a little mad and made some typo's i now see. :p no worries though! ;)

warobserver
11th Apr 2005, 22:22
well. i am ok.i am willing to wait for the date postponed. but the matter is under wether it's this game worth for me to do so or not. hoping to see the value.

mob
11th Apr 2005, 22:29
dude stop with them negitive waves man! all you talk about is them negitive waves! anyways i say it on my way to the IG union at gamespot! when i typed in imperial glory it said 5/17/05.

pausing is for tactically inclined who don't like fast paced games anf have no sense for a need of speed. also calling people noobs is a nubish move.

m8 trust me get to know me and im a stand up guy i just dont want some fool pressing pause every 5 secs online to be sure some rifle division arent going over some bridge when they should be going on water
stuff like taht
man are you a hippy?
negitive waves dude, narly

Emperor Asrailius
11th Apr 2005, 22:38
:eek: GAD ZUKES!!! i was so hoping for IG this month. it will have to compete with Stronghold 2. but whatever, at least there will be more features :D

krazed
12th Apr 2005, 16:05
i just dont want some fool pressing pause every 5 secs online


then dont put it in online play?

BANANAMAN
12th Apr 2005, 16:12
@ Mob.
Who was talking about online play/Multi-Play? I was talking about on your own play/Single Play. :rolleyes: :p

krazed
12th Apr 2005, 16:20
@ Mob.
Who was talking about online play/Multi-Play? I was talking about on your own play/Single Play. :rolleyes: :p

yeah and if he doesnt like it he can just... not use it

HellAngel_666
12th Apr 2005, 19:19
lol thats what i said in another post about people liking not being able to command! lol just DON'T USE IT!

mob
12th Apr 2005, 20:47
im glad you dont like the realizem of an intence battle (not really just taking away the NEGITIVE WAVES from my post so angel wont start taking drugs and talking funny)(hippys do that right?)

StudUK
12th Apr 2005, 21:37
now pushed back to Q3 2005

Guevara
12th Apr 2005, 22:59
q3?! i hope thats not true. If its Q3 2005 they better have the game reamped and everything! Even add some little features like drummer boys and such. I was happy and sad to hear about the delay, oh well.

StudUK
13th Apr 2005, 07:35
I know what your saying but as I said in another thread this can only be good news.

So many things need addressing

ToXS
13th Apr 2005, 08:24
A few things need adressing...??? :eek:

That's like saying the Titanic only needed an extra paint job after the meeting with an iceberg... :rolleyes:

pawnsacrifice
13th Apr 2005, 13:58
im glad you dont like the realizem of an intence battle (not really just taking away the NEGITIVE WAVES from my post so angel wont start taking drugs and talking funny)(hippys do that right?)

What realism? Pausing and giving commands is the only way to make it realistic. Do you really think art in Napoleonic days fired at the same spot when the unit they were supposed to be shooting at has long since disappeared? In real life each unit had it's own officers to deal with changing situations, does the game? Could infantry march 100 meters every ten seconds in perfect formation? The answer to all of these questions is no, so until the game does these things, you need to pause to avoid making it an arcade game. If you like Arcade games, that's fine, but let the strategists play a grown up game for once. thanks

sick
13th Apr 2005, 15:08
now pushed back to Q3 2005

Where did you read that, StudUK?

mob
13th Apr 2005, 15:31
What realism? Pausing and giving commands is the only way to make it realistic. Do you really think art in Napoleonic days fired at the same spot when the unit they were supposed to be shooting at has long since disappeared? In real life each unit had it's own officers to deal with changing situations, does the game? Could infantry march 100 meters every ten seconds in perfect formation? The answer to all of these questions is no, so until the game does these things, you need to pause to avoid making it an arcade game. If you like Arcade games, that's fine, but let the strategists play a grown up game for once. thanks


yes but they only had 2 secs to make decisions and they only had the choice of simple "shoot" not much more
gen of the army made quick decisions if they wanted to live they didnt have an hour to think about it

your post is the bigest load of **** i have ever seen

sry almost ever

Czar
13th Apr 2005, 15:45
yes but they only had 2 secs to make decisions and they only had the choice of simple "shoot" not much more
gen of the army made quick decisions if they wanted to live they didnt have an hour to think about it

your post is the bigest load of **** i have ever seen

sry almost ever

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :D

General talks to scout and reads note from runner...
Looks through Eye Glass at dust cloud coming from other side of ridge...
Consults map...
Consults Staff...
Wonders "Is that MY Cavalry Regiment?"
Thinks "IT HAD BETTER NOT BE! They are out of position!"
WRITES ORDER
Hands order to runner
Dispatches runner...

langmann
13th Apr 2005, 16:23
yes but they only had 2 secs to make decisions and they only had the choice of simple "shoot" not much more
gen of the army made quick decisions if they wanted to live they didnt have an hour to think about it

your post is the bigest load of **** i have ever seen

sry almost ever

Demonstrates that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

mob
13th Apr 2005, 16:40
how so a gen of a unit only had orders like shoot he couldnt say run and he couldnt tell them to run into the middle of the shooting ranks to blocka flank that would mean termoil

Czar
13th Apr 2005, 18:49
how so a gen of a unit only had orders like shoot he couldnt say run and he couldnt tell them to run into the middle of the shooting ranks to blocka flank that would mean termoil

'Tis why DRILL was invented :D

Better trained troops could perform reasonably complex manouvers.
(Reasonably complex considering they were in the open under fire!)

(I woulda been runnin'! :p )

HellAngel_666
13th Apr 2005, 20:45
i hope it's been postponed till Q3 as it would allow them to FIX the FLAWED game they made.

Sharpe
17th Apr 2005, 10:40
I don't think it has been postponed...most websites are still saying 29th April, and i pre-ordered my copy a few days ago, if it WAS going to be postponed they would have sent an email - "We're sorry to tell you that blah blah blah".
But maybe Pyro will release a patch/upgrade to incorporate the feautures we want.

Les The Lionheart
17th Apr 2005, 12:48
Firstly some battles were fast pace some were not. The orders in battle didn't pause the battle once troops were ingaged you made the orders in real time. This is not the prince of persia. You do not know what your on about. Pausing before the battle is realistic because a side might face each other for days. But pausing in the middle of a battle isn't.

Khornish
17th Apr 2005, 16:15
<<Pausing before the battle is realistic because a side might face each other for days. But pausing in the middle of a battle isn't.>>


Firstly, Generals, in the past, had years of experience, if not decades, in which to learn and put into practice the tactics we now so cavalierly know and use.

Secondly, these generals could pretty much count on the majority of their subordinates to carry out their orders and at the same time maintain proper spacing between units so the units could properly deploy into the various formations.

Thirdly, subdivisions of units, could be tasked to do certain things that they cannot do in this game due to programming constraints, namely refuse a flank instead of turning the entire unit to face an enemy to the oblique.

Luckily, we don't have to deal with delayed orders, smoke, fire, "fog of war", drunken commanders, sick horses, and a lack of knowledge about the terrain.

It is a game. Thus, the player should be given the ability to play the game and enjoy the experience instead of merely participating in a clickfest and tally a win or loss at the end of it.

Les The Lionheart
17th Apr 2005, 16:18
The choice is historicaly good or playability. We don't have the choice the developers do.

Rush
18th Apr 2005, 06:15
pausing is for noobs who cant handle the termoil of an epic battle if they do i wont use it but it better not be an online feature for one person to soley be able to pause it or the host for that matter but well done eados



The game is not only to be used by epic generals (like yourself),a lot of people are demanding this stuff.


Rush.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:02
After the disapointment in the demo, we can only pray that IG is being modified. If there was a shipping disorder and nothing was changed, than the manufactuers can kiss my $40 goodbye!!! :(

Oststar
19th Apr 2005, 02:10
This site is so full of idiototic whiners!?!! You ***** about realism on one hand and then in the next breath say you want an arcade feature!

I see this is a forum that attracts young idiots who think they know a lot about the Napoleanic era but actually know nothing.

It says it best that most type "teh" "battel" and other such errors, that you can't even spell points out that you obviously don't read enough to know anything about the Napoleanic era.

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 02:53
You have a point; many, including myself, get entertainment out of whining. I, for one, have made several contradicting points and confess to being obnoxious. However, even you can't doubt the abundant historical accuracies in this game. If you actually believe that an entire cavalry force would retreat at the sight of a single infantry square, than you are sadly mistaken. In several occasions in history, including the Charge of the light Brigade in the Crimea, suicidal assaults were common. This game eliminates the human factor and replaces the soldier with a cowardly peasant who is to afraid to charge even against slight risk. Call me oblivious, but this game is not as realistic as it could be. Yet, I must agree, that many complain far too much. It is a combination of realism and arcade style that makes games great. Too much realism, and a game becomes boring and redundant. This game's potential lies in both relaism and arcade style, which, unfortunately, wasn't displayed in the demo. Both sides have an argument, so to call people whiny ****** is a little extreme.
Wow, this paragraph is corny...

Cro_Knight
19th Apr 2005, 03:04
This site is so full of idiototic whiners!?!! You ***** about realism on one hand and then in the next breath say you want an arcade feature!

I see this is a forum that attracts young idiots who think they know a lot about the Napoleanic era but actually know nothing.

It says it best that most type "teh" "battel" and other such errors, that you can't even spell points out that you obviously don't read enough to know anything about the Napoleanic era.
ITS SLANG BROTHA

Oststar
19th Apr 2005, 03:05
You have a point; many, including myself, get entertainment out of whining. I, for one, have made several contradicting points and confess to being obnoxious. However, even you can't doubt the abundant historical accuracies in this game. If you actually believe that an entire cavalry force would retreat at the sight of a single infantry square, than you are sadly mistaken. In several occasions in history, including the Charge of the light Brigade in the Crimea, suicidal assaults were common. This game eliminates the human factor and replaces the soldier with a cowardly peasant who is to afraid to charge even against slight risk. Call me oblivious, but this game is not as realistic as it could be. Yet, I must agree, that many complain far too much. It is a combination of realism and arcade style that makes games great. Too much realism, and a game becomes boring and redundant. This game's potential lies in both relaism and arcade style, which, unfortunately, wasn't displayed in the demo. Both sides have an argument, so to call people whiny ****** is a little extreme.
Wow, this paragraph is corny...

Some of you actually had valid points, but some of you were *****ing about things that don't even happen. The Cavalry do not retreat at the sight of squares, they retreat when the leading six cavalrymen are impaled on the squares. The French cavalry at Waterloo repeatedly charged the squares after they'd been grapshotted by the royal artillery, even though every time the British infantry repulsed them.

Cavalry charges were often heroicly stupid in the extreme, hence the romantic nature in them. If you've ever played Close Combat Five you agree that the random system of individual's bravery is needed in IG. There are balance issues that i'm sure will be corrected in the 1.2 patch such as the squares repelling infantry.

As for calling you whiny ******s, well whiny was fair, especially after reading the crap some other members wrote, but *****, it censored "brats" and "idiots" and other calm words.

screamingpalm
19th Apr 2005, 03:15
<quote>
Cavalry charges were often heroicly stupid in the extreme, hence the romantic nature in them. If you've ever played Close Combat Five you agree that the random system of individual's bravery is needed in IG.
<quote>

One of my favorite battles in the Penninsula I read about was the Combat on the Coa where Marshal Ney went mad and sent wave after wave of cavalry to their deaths on the bridge. The accounts from a British soldier told a vivid picture of bodies piling up...

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 03:15
Sorry to complain, but I've got one more. Where is the famous smoke caused by black powder? In most battles, a dense shield of smoke engulfed the battlefield. I want to see my men choking on the polluted fog! If there is to be one historical modification to the game, this should be it.

Lt.Phoenix
19th Apr 2005, 03:17
Yes, and if there was a prize for whiner of the day, I think you would win, even over ArchDukeMalygas or whatever!

Khornish
19th Apr 2005, 08:15
Some of you actually had valid points, but some of you were *****ing about things that don't even happen. The Cavalry do not retreat at the sight of squares, they retreat when the leading six cavalrymen are impaled on the squares. The French cavalry at Waterloo repeatedly charged the squares after they'd been grapshotted by the royal artillery, even though every time the British infantry repulsed them. .

Waterloo is a terrible example for an examination of the proper use of cavalry. The French cavalry were badly misused in a role they weren't meant for. Just as Eylau shouldn't be used as a good example of what cavalry charges are always meant to become. Each battle had conditions that pulled the results to the extremes.

Cavalry could and would retreat from attacking an enemy infantry unit that was able to get into square in time. It depended upon the circumstances of the battle and their orders.

The leading six cavalrymen didn't often get impaled on bayonets, neither did most of the rest of a squadron. They'd usually be shot down if they closed with the square, but only if the infantry were given the order to fire a volley.

The strengths of a square weren't just the array of bayonets presented to each front, but also the ability of the troops within the square to fire volleys and the morale of the troops involved.

An experienced cavalry unit, when presented with a square, and when ordered to attack that square once it formed, would play the odds. They'd try to form a gap somewhere in the square, usually on a corner by whatever means where available. Sometimes they'd use sabers (meaning they were close enough to get bayoneted) sometimes they resorted to pistols, carbines, etc. Sometimes they would attempt to leap over and into the infantry, in order to supress the troops enough to allow more cavalrymen to do the same thing. Once a gap was formed well enough for more than a couple cavalrymen, the square was almost assured to be broken.

Cavalry wasn't meant to attack a square alone. The goal was to use combined arms and eliminate the formed square by artillery or infantry support. Once the square was shaken by fire, the cavalry would probe to see if it was weak enough to be charged.

However, lancers would often be the death of a square, or severly put one to the test. The lance was long enough to be used from well outside the reach of a bayoneted musket and the infantry was forced to try to fend the lancers off as best they could, without breaking ranks or firing without orders.

There are several instances recorded where a cavalry squadron armed with pistols and or carbines would halt outside of effective musket range. Then, in ones or twos individual troopers would ride up to within range of their own small arms, fire, and retreat. The idea was to inflict casualties in the hopes of causing a volley to be fired on just these few individuals. If the volley was fired, the squadron would attempt a charge, usually.


Cavalry charges were often heroicly stupid in the extreme, hence the romantic nature in them.

After about 1850 this becomes more true, but prior to that time period, the weapons and tactics prove otherwise. A good unit of cavalry would wait for the targeted infantry to make an error, or for some good luck of their own. Read about the 1806 campaign to get a good feel for this.

During the Napoleonic Wars cavalry was a decisive arm and fully capable in its proper role on a battlefield.


As for calling you whiny ******s, well whiny was fair, especially after reading the crap some other members wrote, but *****, it censored "brats" and "idiots" and other calm words.

Let the words of a person prove or disprove them a fool, but name calling is the debate tactic for a person with little to go on.

Tenjo_Kalle
19th Apr 2005, 09:04
This site is so full of idiototic whiners!?!! You ***** about realism on one hand and then in the next breath say you want an arcade feature This site is so full of idiototic whiners!?!! You ***** about realism on one hand and then in the next breath say you want an arcade feature!

I see this is a forum that attracts young idiots who think they know a lot about the Napoleanic era but actually know nothing.

It says it best that most type "teh" "battel" and other such errors, that you can't even spell points out that you obviously don't read enough to know anything about the Napoleanic era.

UUmmm, how can the misspelling of the word "the" tell you that people know nothing?? That is, in my eyes, maybe the most idiotic thing to say that I have seen in this forum. Especially since you yourself cant even spell Napoleonic.

Apart from this I think people here come from all over the world and errors in English is to be expected since for many of us it is not our first language but maybe the second or third.

Kalle

Oststar
19th Apr 2005, 09:20
UUmmm, how can the misspelling of the word "the" tell you that people know nothing?? That is, in my eyes, maybe the most idiotic thing to say that I have seen in this forum. Especially since you yourself cant even spell Napoleonic.

Apart from this I think people here come from all over the world and errors in English is to be expected since for many of us it is not our first language but maybe the second or third.

Kalle

I'll point out now that in my dictionary it's written Napoleanic, not Napoleonic.

Maybe the misspelling matters because it's often that an intelligent and mature author of a post will take the time to reread each sentance after/as they write it and fix mistakes. The immature and unintelligent usually ignore this and post their (usually) uneducated opinions.

The fact is i've spent time on many forums (within reason of having a life) and generally my points of grammar and spelling are accepted.

Oststar
19th Apr 2005, 10:00
Waterloo is a terrible example for an examination of the proper use of cavalry. The French cavalry were badly misused in a role they weren't meant for. Just as Eylau shouldn't be used as a good example of what cavalry charges are always meant to become. Each battle had conditions that pulled the results to the extremes.

Indeed, but my point wasn't of a typical use of cavalry, it was that cavalry would try and attack squares again, because morale eventually breaks after repeated crushing attacks.

At Waterloo the possibly unstable Ney used the cavalry because he thought the British were at breaking point. The cavalry was therefore slaughtered. I suppose it's still a bad example in some ways.


Cavalry could and would retreat from attacking an enemy infantry unit that was able to get into square in time. It depended upon the circumstances of the battle and their orders.

Yes, i'll agree with that statement, but in IG i'm saying that they don't retreat at the sight of squares, they retreat when they hit them.


The leading six cavalrymen didn't often get impaled on bayonets, neither did most of the rest of a squadron. They'd usually be shot down if they closed with the square, but only if the infantry were given the order to fire a volley.

Again I agree, but i'm stating what the game does, not facts. Also they might be impaled sometimes.


The strengths of a square weren't just the array of bayonets presented to each front, but also the ability of the troops within the square to fire volleys and the morale of the troops involved.

I dont get what you're pointing out here.


An experienced cavalry unit, when presented with a square, and when ordered to attack that square once it formed, would play the odds. They'd try to form a gap somewhere in the square, usually on a corner by whatever means where available. Sometimes they'd use sabers (meaning they were close enough to get bayoneted) sometimes they resorted to pistols, carbines, etc. Sometimes they would attempt to leap over and into the infantry, in order to supress the troops enough to allow more cavalrymen to do the same thing. Once a gap was formed well enough for more than a couple cavalrymen, the square was almost assured to be broken.

Same thing: what's your point mate? I know this stuff.


Cavalry wasn't meant to attack a square alone. The goal was to use combined arms and eliminate the formed square by artillery or infantry support. Once the square was shaken by fire, the cavalry would probe to see if it was weak enough to be charged.

It's the same in IG: you volley on a square and then charge, most of the time the square breaks like an egg hit on the side.


However, lancers would often be the death of a square, or severly put one to the test. The lance was long enough to be used from well outside the reach of a bayoneted musket and the infantry was forced to try to fend the lancers off as best they could, without breaking ranks or firing without orders.

I'll have to try that on IG sometime, i've never been told/read that before, though it's quite obviously true (I'm a WWII fanatic, though I love the Napoleonic (better? I'll discard my Dictionary) era.


There are several instances recorded where a cavalry squadron armed with pistols and or carbines would halt outside of effective musket range. Then, in ones or twos individual troopers would ride up to within range of their own small arms, fire, and retreat. The idea was to inflict casualties in the hopes of causing a volley to be fired on just these few individuals. If the volley was fired, the squadron would attempt a charge, usually.


After about 1850 this becomes more true, but prior to that time period, the weapons and tactics prove otherwise. A good unit of cavalry would wait for the targeted infantry to make an error, or for some good luck of their own. Read about the 1806 campaign to get a good feel for this.

Yes I know: repeating rifles had better range, stopping power, accuracy and reloading time. Therefore a cavalry charge like at Sedan, was pointless: the cavalry would be killed before they reached the infantry.


During the Napoleonic Wars cavalry was a decisive arm and fully capable in its proper role on a battlefield.

Who said it wasn't?


Let the words of a person prove or disprove them a fool, but name calling is the debate tactic for a person with little to go on.

Nevertheless it happens, and some of the **** were also "whiners"

Commisar Adam
19th Apr 2005, 15:08
I'll point out now that in my dictionary it's written Napoleanic, not Napoleonic.

As for calling you whiny ******s, well whiny was fair, especially after reading the crap some other members wrote, but *****, it censored "brats" and "idiots" and other calm words.

Maybe the misspelling matters because it's often that an intelligent and mature author of a post will take the time to reread each sentance after/as they write it and fix mistakes. The immature and unintelligent usually ignore this and post their (usually) uneducated opinions.

Is it just me, or are we methodically drifting off topic? :confused:

colmde
19th Apr 2005, 16:42
pausing is for noobs who cant handle the termoil of an epic battle if they do

I'll add to the disagreement of this... If it's anything like Total War, the computer player can give about 15 different orders in about a milisecond, there's no reason why the human player shouldn't be allowed do the same.

Gorasonas
19th Apr 2005, 16:48
- because humans have 'real' intelligence and are always stronger than AI
- because Pause takes action and thrill out of the battle
- because in Multiplayer you can't have Pause either..

screamingpalm
19th Apr 2005, 16:52
I dont see a problem with having pause in SP, I personally do not use it, but why not have it for those who do? Please DONT put one in mp though! That affects all players and would be annoying.

mob
19th Apr 2005, 16:57
hence theirs so many online players for the fun

Sharpe
19th Apr 2005, 18:36
ah well, who cares, it's not been post-poned, so lets just hope they release a patch for those of you who want to pause and give commands in the middle of a battle (lazy people).

Khornish
19th Apr 2005, 19:21
Yes, i'll agree with that statement, but in IG i'm saying that they don't retreat at the sight of squares, they retreat when they hit them.


Again I agree, but i'm stating what the game does, not facts. Also they might be impaled sometimes.

You may want to consider parsing your sentences and paragraphs a bit better then. You made a statement, to which I responded, which appeared to apply to something other than the game.


I dont get what you're pointing out here.


Same thing: what's your point mate? I know this stuff.

You can be reasonable assured that the majority of the others here who read the posts don't "know this stuff". Thus, instead of a quick reply that would further allow them to make false assumptions and then derive false expectations, I gave a more complete answer.



It's the same in IG: you volley on a square and then charge, most of the time the square breaks like an egg hit on the side.

Run some tests using combined arms and see how it goes. Without being able to pause and command, or without a mechanism to coordinate attacks by the push of a button, a combined arms attack generally fails. In this instance, I am specifically referring to using Cavalry as the primary attacker.



I'll have to try that on IG sometime, i've never been told/read that before, though it's quite obviously true (I'm a WWII fanatic, though I love the Napoleonic (better? I'll discard my Dictionary) era.

I don't feel it works as it should in IG, partly my reason for bringing up the point.

Also, Lancers+Rain= Dead, Dead, Dead Infantry.


Yes I know: repeating rifles had better range, stopping power, accuracy and reloading time. Therefore a cavalry charge like at Sedan, was pointless: the cavalry would be killed before they reached the infantry.

Depended on how well handled the cavalry was. There are several cases recorded where breechloaded/repeating rifles were defeated by a cavalry charge.

Again, not everyone here has a background in military history, tactics, etc. One combats ignorance with good information.


Who said it wasn't?

Read this:


Cavalry charges were often heroicly stupid in the extreme, hence the romantic nature in them.

As you did not put this statement into a context, you left it up to the reader to decide whether the context was regarding the time period IG covers, or some other period of time.

Thus, instead of allowing a reader to assume your statement applied to all cavalry charges throughout history, I gave a response.


Nevertheless it happens, and some of the **** were also "whiners"

And to that I'll say, when wrestling with a pig you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

Oststar
19th Apr 2005, 23:00
You may want to consider parsing your sentences and paragraphs a bit better then. You made a statement, to which I responded, which appeared to apply to something other than the game.

Well now you know...

[qute]You can be reasonable assured that the majority of the others here who read the posts don't "know this stuff". Thus, instead of a quick reply that would further allow them to make false assumptions and then derive false expectations, I gave a more complete answer. [/quote]

Sorry; it's been my experience in forums that people ignore those who don't know and get increasingly drawn into personal arguements. Ever visit Forumplanet?


Run some tests using combined arms and see how it goes. Without being able to pause and command, or without a mechanism to coordinate attacks by the push of a button, a combined arms attack generally fails. In this instance, I am specifically referring to using Cavalry as the primary attacker.

My second try at Cyrenacia my line was broken and I had only three weakened battalions of infantry left, along with hussars. If i'd left my infantry to hack it out against the enemy i'd have lost. Instead I assembled my cavalry nearby, fired a volley and charged. The square broke like a sandcastle hit by a wave. I did it to all five enemy units, and won the battle. Is that enough combined arms tactics?


I don't feel it works as it should in IG, partly my reason for bringing up the point.

Hopefully Pyrostudios will fix it, it doesn't mean the game is terrible however.


Also, Lancers+Rain= Dead, Dead, Dead Infantry.

Why does rain increase the effectiveness? Mud?


Depended on how well handled the cavalry was. There are several cases recorded where breechloaded/repeating rifles were defeated by a cavalry charge.

As a general rule though we can agree that after the advent of the breech loader rifle cavalry wasn't effective in its role. It remained effective during WWII however, not for charging, but as Dragoons.


Again, not everyone here has a background in military history, tactics, etc. One combats ignorance with good information.

Read this:

As you did not put this statement into a context, you left it up to the reader to decide whether the context was regarding the time period IG covers, or some other period of time.

Thus, instead of allowing a reader to assume your statement applied to all cavalry charges throughout history, I gave a response.

Also charges were romantic in the nature that you were riding headlong into battle; it was the morale effect as much as the actual combat effectiveness that made cavalry so devastating.




And to that I'll say, when wrestling with a pig you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

I'm the Pig...

Khornish
19th Apr 2005, 23:59
Sorry; it's been my experience in forums that people ignore those who don't know and get increasingly drawn into personal arguements. Ever visit Forumplanet?

No. After maintaining forums privately and professionally for several years, I've grown tired of camping forums for any great length of time. I'll post here for a bit until I see what the full release of the game looks like, and see if people post about bugs or exploits, then I'll move on to something more interesting, like the game that I am particularly interested in purchasing this year.


My second try at Cyrenacia my line was broken and I had only three weakened battalions of infantry left, along with hussars. If i'd left my infantry to hack it out against the enemy i'd have lost. Instead I assembled my cavalry nearby, fired a volley and charged. The square broke like a sandcastle hit by a wave. I did it to all five enemy units, and won the battle.

From what others have posted in these forums, I am quite certain many won't be able to duplicate the feat due to lack of speed with the mouse and hot keys. Thus their request for the pause+command option be included with the full release.


Is that enough combined arms tactics??

Not really, it just shows that you were able to have it work. Now, take a person who is not fast with the RTS style games, but wants to have fun with IG, can they reasonably get the same job done while being slow with the controls? More like than not they'll be dissatisfied with the game and tell their mates the game sucks. In their minds it will suck, because the programmers designed it to not be player friendly. So, with such a small feature, the game can appeal to the casual gamer and those who don't want to use it won't have to.

Also, when you say the square broke, is what you really mean is they didn't flee, but rather the formation was lost and the infantry then fought to the death? What kind of casualties did you take at this point?


Hopefully Pyrostudios will fix it, it doesn't mean the game is terrible however.

A game doesn't have to be terrible to have someone choose to not buy it. If the game isn't "good enough" to cause someone to spend their money, then the same result happens, a lost sale. I won't think the game sucks or is terrible if some of the features I want to see aren't in the game, but I probably won't buy it if most are left out.



Why does rain increase the effectiveness? Mud?

Rain wets the powder in the pan, flints get wet as well. A square incapable of delivering a volley is living on borrowed time as nothing is to deter the cavalry from closing into range and using a field expedient weapon or tactic to form a gap in the square somewhere.


As a general rule though we can agree that after the advent of the breech loader rifle cavalry wasn't effective in its role.

Only insofar that the role of battlefield cavalry, for the most part, did not properly evolve in the face of newer, more capable weapons and tactics. When the maxim gun was used, and even with the gatling gun, a charge by a squadron in line was virtual suicide.

Breechloaders didn't end the effectiveness of battlefield cavalry, it was the machine gun and rapid fire light artillery.

Anyone interested in studying this should read about the various campaigns of the British army post 1870's.


It remained effective during WWII however, not for charging, but as Dragoons.

Beyond the highly vaunted, but poorly led and equipped Polish horse units, cavalry had pretty much disappeared in any type of combat role.


Also charges were romantic in the nature that you were riding headlong into battle; it was the morale effect as much as the actual combat effectiveness that made cavalry so devastating.

I don't really agree or disagree, there's a lot more to it, but my point in my initial response wasn't really to prove or disprove your contentions.

A factual assessment followed by realistic expectations of results should lead to better requests and suggestions from the player base. I don't feel anyone here really wants this game to suck, thus need good information to go with in order to suggest and criticize properly.


I'm the Pig...

I'm sure others here could have made that determination without your help. :D

Oststar
20th Apr 2005, 02:34
No. After maintaining forums privately and professionally for several years, I've grown tired of camping forums for any great length of time. I'll post here for a bit until I see what the full release of the game looks like, and see if people post about bugs or exploits, then I'll move on to something more interesting, like the game that I am particularly interested in purchasing this year.

There was a reason I asked, if you'd answered yes i'd have elaborated. And yes maintaining forums is a drag sometimes, even just maintaining free hosted ones. I currently run them for a clan that intends to play IG, needless to say they're much better people than i'm making myself look.


From what others have posted in these forums, I am quite certain many won't be able to duplicate the feat due to lack of speed with the mouse and hot keys. Thus their request for the pause+command option be included with the full release.

It simply involved selecting a battalion, ordering it to fire and then selecting the cavalry. Once the battalion fires you charge the cavalry and you destroy the square. Easily done, even for someone who isn't good at click and point RTs like myself.


Not really, it just shows that you were able to have it work. Now, take a person who is not fast with the RTS style games, but wants to have fun with IG, can they reasonably get the same job done while being slow with the controls? More like than not they'll be dissatisfied with the game and tell their mates the game sucks. In their minds it will suck, because the programmers designed it to not be player friendly. So, with such a small feature, the game can appeal to the casual gamer and those who don't want to use it won't have to.

I had it work because the tatic works in IG. You said it didn't. But yes I can see and have long before you posted, that pause is something some players want. Add it, even add a RoN style cannon time if you like, i'll not use it though and play my way. I'll enjoy playing without it too, just as players with it will enjoy playing with pause.


Also, when you say the square broke, is what you really mean is they didn't flee, but rather the formation was lost and the infantry then fought to the death? What kind of casualties did you take at this point?

Some of the formations (both sides had just been through Cyrenacia at close quarters) were weakened to about 20 or less men and simply fell apart and the cavalry slaughtered them. More clearly: the infantry volley would kill men in the square, which weakened that side. The cavalry would immeadiately, I mean immeadiately: that's the key to the whole thing, charge into the weakened side before the square could close the gap. Those squares would dissolve and the men would die the secodn they tried to melee.

Other formations melee'd for a few seconds and then died. The key was breaking a side of the square so that the cavalry could enter it and break it apart from the inside.



A game doesn't have to be terrible to have someone choose to not buy it. If the game isn't "good enough" to cause someone to spend their money, then the same result happens, a lost sale. I won't think the game sucks or is terrible if some of the features I want to see aren't in the game, but I probably won't buy it if most are left out.

Given the nature of Developers and especially Publishers these days I don't buy many games anymore. RTS is nearly all the same click/rush/build, FPS are nearly all the same run-gun/spray-pray type games. And publishers like EA can kill all kinds of good points to a game: Battlefield 1942 is currently at 1.61b patch. The promised and then killed (by EA, no less) 1.7 patch would have corrected errors like Japanese carrying kar98k's, British using Thompsons, etc etc. Since Devs and Publishers are both dedicated to money and not players (A stupid choice as popular games bring in lots of money while unpopular ones don't. Lack of support makes a game unpopular; hence they are killing themselves).

Imperial Glory has a lot of features that will "own" games like Age of Empires 3 and Empire Earth 2. A lot of you cry as though it's the Soldner of RTS (Soldner was a much anticipated game in FPS circles that turned out to be terrible, so terrible people were afraid to Download the demo). Imperial Glory needs tweaking at worst, and if you really want to tweak it get mods. IG looks to be a good model for a Civil War mod; it might be stretched to WWI or even WWII. I think it's sad that you are all talking of not getting it when it is so clearly better than other games on the market.


Rain wets the powder in the pan, flints get wet as well. A square incapable of delivering a volley is living on borrowed time as nothing is to deter the cavalry from closing into range and using a field expedient weapon or tactic to form a gap in the square somewhere.

Now I understand, thank you. As I said i'm a WWII fanatic, not Napoleonic era, so troubles of that era aren't like troubles of WWII: I didn' even consider power.


Only insofar that the role of battlefield cavalry, for the most part, did not properly evolve in the face of newer, more capable weapons and tactics. When the maxim gun was used, and even with the gatling gun, a charge by a squadron in line was virtual suicide.

Breechloaders didn't end the effectiveness of battlefield cavalry, it was the machine gun and rapid fire light artillery.

I disagree: breechloaders repeatedly turned back cavalry. Gattlings and Maxims ended infantry attacks in the old manner. It took until 1916 for replacements to be developed that worked. It took much longer for this to show up, however, as Battles like Ypres and Camrai took place in so much mud that tactics were impossible.


Beyond the highly vaunted, but poorly led and equipped Polish horse units, cavalry had pretty much disappeared in any type of combat role.

No, during WWI cavalry was still used for recon, and during WWII the Russians used Cossack Ponnies to increase mobility in the snow. The cavalry could go further and faster and even into places the Infantry couldn't go, even sometimes where vehicles couldn't go. The soldiers would then dismount and fight as infantrymen: Dragoons*. Russia stopped using cavalry after the war because they had enough halftracks and mobilty of vehicles became better.


I don't really agree or disagree, there's a lot more to it, but my point in my initial response wasn't really to prove or disprove your contentions.

A factual assessment followed by realistic expectations of results should lead to better requests and suggestions from the player base. I don't feel anyone here really wants this game to suck, thus need good information to go with in order to suggest and criticize properly.

A lot of what's here isn't factual or helpful, it's simple whining. Saying: "I'd like an option to group units: I had far too much trouble with pacing individual units." Is better and more helpful than: "Why didn't Pryostudios have grouping? This game sucks and has no realism, i'm not buying it!"

If it had been factual and helpful i'd not have posted, i'd have ghosted and read topics on dates. Instead I saw whinging and decided that i'd throw my hat in the ring.


I'm sure others here could have made that determination without your help. :D

I agree, but then I don't even try being liked on forums anymore: I get called arrogant and have my inbox filled with angry PMs. People who have hated me on forums have become very good friends of the forums later.

Besides I enjoy a good arguement.

Khornish
20th Apr 2005, 06:52
It simply involved selecting a battalion, ordering it to fire and then selecting the cavalry. Once the battalion fires you charge the cavalry and you destroy the square. Easily done, even for someone who isn't good at click and point RTs like myself.

No matter how easy you found it to be, many will not, especially people who like to watch the action.


I had it work because the tatic works in IG. You said it didn't.

I said combined arms attacks generally didn't work (properly). I'm glad you were able to get it to work for you, now others can try to accomplish it as well.

Next, see if you can get it to work with using artillery as your fire support.

Also, where was the cavalry placed in relation to the supporting infantry prior to the volley?


Other formations melee'd for a few seconds and then died. The key was breaking a side of the square so that the cavalry could enter it and break it apart from the inside.

Again, I hope others explore this and get it to work for themselves.


Given the nature of Developers and especially Publishers these days I don't buy many games anymore. RTS is nearly all the same click/rush/build, FPS are nearly all the same run-gun/spray-pray type games. And publishers like EA can kill all kinds of good points to a game: Battlefield 1942 is currently at 1.61b patch.

I once worked in the industry. I seriously doubt I'd ever do it again as anything other than a designer. I refuse to buy anything from EA or Atari again, period. I'd rather support smaller development teams who scratch for every dollar earned, than go with the "glitz and glamour" of the bigger companies.

Customer Disservice has become rule number one for far too many developers and publishers.


Imperial Glory needs tweaking at worst, and if you really want to tweak it get mods. IG looks to be a good model for a Civil War mod; it might be stretched to WWI or even WWII.

I don't spend my money on a game because of the potential mod support. I want a good, playable game up front. If future mods extend the life of the game, fine, but I'm not playing the lottery with it.


I think it's sad that you are all talking of not getting it when it is so clearly better than other games on the market.

Well, I can by a new XBox game for my kids instead, or add to my collection of historical/fantasy/sci-fi miniatures or buy a book or two. If the game doesn't beat out these other competing interests of mine, the developers won't be rewarded with my money.


Now I understand, thank you. As I said i'm a WWII fanatic, not Napoleonic era, so troubles of that era aren't like troubles of WWII: I didn' even consider pow[d]er.

Not a prob. I would someone have good info than bad info.


I disagree: breechloaders repeatedly turned back cavalry.

So did muzzleloaders, but that's not the issue. The issue was cavalry's battlefield role wasn't truly diminished solely by the appearance of breechloaders on the battlefield.


Gattlings and Maxims ended infantry attacks in the old manner. It took until 1916 for replacements to be developed that worked. It took much longer for this to show up, however, as Battles like Ypres and Camrai took place in so much mud that tactics were impossible.

Machines guns and rapid firing artillery brought about the end to any charge in the old style, other than acts of great desparation or of suicidal futility. It didn't happen overnight as you and I are well aware, the gastly casualties suffered at just 2 battles in WWI should have been enough of a lesson.


No, during WWI cavalry was still used for recon, and during WWII the Russians used Cossack Ponnies to increase mobility in the snow. The cavalry could go further and faster and even into places the Infantry couldn't go, even sometimes where vehicles couldn't go. The soldiers would then dismount and fight as infantrymen: Dragoons*. Russia stopped using cavalry after the war because they had enough halftracks and mobilty of vehicles became better.

I replied to your context of WWII, not WWI. Many of Germany's future generals of panzer divisions, corps, and armies served in the German cavalry during WWI.

Also, I was making a statement, not a contention. FWIW, horses used as transportation for "dragoons" aren't typically defined as serving a combat role, they'd be considered transportation. They might get involved in combat, but it's not their role or designation.


A lot of what's here isn't factual or helpful, it's simple whining. Saying: "I'd like an option to group units: I had far too much trouble with pacing individual units." Is better and more helpful than: "Why didn't Pryostudios have grouping? This game sucks and has no realism, i'm not buying it!"

Does whining about someone else whining truly serve a good purpose? Instead combat ignorance with information, stupidity with logic, absurdity with humor.


I agree, but then I don't even try being liked on forums anymore: I get called arrogant and have my inbox filled with angry PMs. People who have hated me on forums have become very good friends of the forums later.

Being liked or disliked doesn't matter a whit to me either. However, I won't compromise my own good behavior, ethics, and morality or stoop to wrestling in the gutter.

Oststar
20th Apr 2005, 23:16
No matter how easy you found it to be, many will not, especially people who like to watch the action.

Sure watching the action is how some people like it... rent a movie? I prefer to have to micromanage my troops than be useless while they run through predetermined animations and evolutions.

[quote]I said combined arms attacks generally didn't work (properly). I'm glad you were able to get it to work for you, now others can try to accomplish it as well.

I've done it in every battle where my infantry took heavy casualties. I line up my remaining troops, volley and then send in the cavalry. The only trouble i've had so far is that my infantry gets almost too weak to volley effectively.


Next, see if you can get it to work with using artillery as your fire support.

Now that would be harder for me as i'm not very good with my artillery: I tend to either lose a lot of men protecting it or lose the guns themselves, never do they seem effective enough (Except 'vanilla' Cyrenacia where they are good for pounding the incoming Austrians).


Also, where was the cavalry placed in relation to the supporting infantry prior to the volley?

Usually behind the Infantry, or slightly to the side, but behind is better because that way the infantry takes the hits, but thecavalry is close enough to strike before the square reforms.


Again, I hope others explore this and get it to work for themselves.

It certainly gave my cavalry a reason for being: my first few IG matches I wasted them because I didn't understand why they kept fleeing. Once you understand IG better you like it better.


I once worked in the industry. I seriously doubt I'd ever do it again as anything other than a designer. I refuse to buy anything from EA or Atari again, period. I'd rather support smaller development teams who scratch for every dollar earned, than go with the "glitz and glamour" of the bigger companies.

I am very close to not buying anything from EA either, they almost seem to guess what will anger the players most and then do it. Bigger companies seem to try to get money and the least possible after shipping involvement, which really is a paradox because games with better support sell better than games without it.


Customer Disservice has become rule number one for far too many developers and publishers.

Hence some of them are dying under their own weight.


I don't spend my money on a game because of the potential mod support. I want a good, playable game up front. If future mods extend the life of the game, fine, but I'm not playing the lottery with it.

Battlefield 1942 would be nothing without DC, and to a lesser degree FH. But that wasn't my point anyway, sorry if it sounded that way. I said that it needs tweaking currently. Patches will tweak it and i'm sure Pyrostudios will fix problems like squared infantry repelling infantry charges. The other part of what I said was that if you really want to tweak it later there will be mos that do that. The IG engine is good, it just needs some minor tweaks right now.


Well, I can by a new XBox game for my kids instead, or add to my collection of historical/fantasy/sci-fi miniatures or buy a book or two. If the game doesn't beat out these other competing interests of mine, the developers won't be rewarded with my money.

I can't see why so many are looking at IG in a bad light: it runs smoothly and has great potential. Many games don't reach their full potential until after release. Sure Captains, Drummers and Standard Bearers would be nice, but they hardly effect gameplay, and they might be patched in later.


So did muzzleloaders, but that's not the issue. The issue was cavalry's battlefield role wasn't truly diminished solely by the appearance of breechloaders on the battlefield.

With breechloaders even lower grade troops could repell a cavalry charge, a report from Sedan outlines how when the Prussians fired one volley the whole leading squadron collapsed. The second fared hardly any better. Muzzleloaders could repell cavalry, breechloaders nearly always did.


Also, I was making a statement, not a contention. FWIW, horses used as transportation for "dragoons" aren't typically defined as serving a combat role, they'd be considered transportation. They might get involved in combat, but it's not their role or designation.

The units sometimes fought from horseback (especially in advances like Little Saturn and Uranus), but more often dismounted for greater accuracy. The horses were never more than a few metres away, hence they're cavalry and all historians seem to class them as such.


ining about someone else whining truly serve a good purpose? Instead combat ignorance with information, stupidity with logic, absurdity with humor.

Being liked or disliked doesn't matter a whit to me either. However, I won't compromise my own good behavior, ethics, and morality or stoop to wrestling in the gutter.

Ah but notice the lessened *****ing... And besides as said before: I like wrestling, just don't forget i'm sometime the pig and sometimes the person.

Khornish
21st Apr 2005, 00:06
Sure watching the action is how some people like it... rent a movie? I prefer to have to micromanage my troops than be useless while they run through predetermined animations and evolutions.

What's the point of nice graphics if one can't enjoy watching them during a game instead of having to rapid fire off a series of keystrokes and mouse clicks. One of the only real issues I had with RTW was the high speed at which combat and movement transpired.


I've done it in every battle where my infantry took heavy casualties. I line up my remaining troops, volley and then send in the cavalry. The only trouble i've had so far is that my infantry gets almost too weak to volley effectively.

I'd really like for the full game to have a speed slider, if I can't pause and issue orders, being able to crank down the speed to would be the next best thing. I could then slow down the action, issue orders, then speed it back up to watch it resolve.


Now that would be harder for me as i'm not very good with my artillery: I tend to either lose a lot of men protecting it or lose the guns themselves, never do they seem effective enough (Except 'vanilla' Cyrenacia where they are good for pounding the incoming Austrians).

I'm not at all convinced artillery works remotely like it should in IG. They absolutely need canister rounds.


Usually behind the Infantry, or slightly to the side, but behind is better because that way the infantry takes the hits, but thecavalry is close enough to strike before the square reforms.

Which is probably why a lot of people, myself included, have had problems getting it to work. Passing through a friendly deployed line with a cavalry charge was something to avoid, not something to encourage. I have been playing the demo using more correct tactics for the period the game covers. I'm certain a lot of people who have a more of a background with miniature wargames or with the scholarly side also have had similar issues.

Which is an example of one of the complaints I, and others, have about IG.


It certainly gave my cavalry a reason for being: my first few IG matches I wasted them because I didn't understand why they kept fleeing. Once you understand IG better you like it better.

Yeah, someone told me that about Axis & Allies from Atari. I wasted my money on that game, which pretty much cemented my decision to never trust them with it again. I should have stopped at MOO3.


Battlefield 1942 would be nothing without DC, and to a lesser degree FH.

See, I don't even like DC.

EA is the devil.


Patches will tweak it and i'm sure Pyrostudios will fix problems like squared infantry repelling infantry charges.

If the developers would respond here or on the TAFN site about what they are looking at following the feedback from the demo, I'm sure a lot of people would no longer have a reason to complain. May not stop em from complaining, but they'd not have a reason.


The other part of what I said was that if you really want to tweak it later there will be mos that do that. The IG engine is good, it just needs some minor tweaks right now.

Hey, if someone gives me a copy of the game, I may even install it on my HD, should I go ahead and not purchase it. However, the strategic level had better kick butt for me to spend the time for the install. I can play any number of other RTS games, but I want a good strategic level of the game to go with a decent tactical level.

And I am sadly disappointed there's not going to be a multiplayer campaign ability.


With breechloaders even lower grade troops could repell a cavalry charge, a report from Sedan outlines how when the Prussians fired one volley the whole leading squadron collapsed. The second fared hardly any better. Muzzleloaders could repell cavalry, breechloaders nearly always did.

Sedan... <sigh> Stupidly led cavalry are going to get slaughtered even when facing boyscouts armed with slingshots.


The units sometimes fought from horseback (especially in advances like Little Saturn and Uranus), but more often dismounted for greater accuracy. The horses were never more than a few metres away, hence they're cavalry and all historians seem to class them as such.

I really think it's an argument over semantics at this point. Previously, dragoon's weren't considered cavalry, then became part of the arm, then changed back to being infantry transported via horseback, then back again, etc.

I'd not classify dismounted French knights advanced against the English at Agincourt as a "cavalry charge".


Ah but notice the lessened *****ing... And besides as said before: I like wrestling, just don't forget i'm sometime the pig and sometimes the person.

I'm not certain the less whining is due to your own whining about it, but rather that you and I changed the tone of the thread a bit. Maybe that's a bit egocentric of me, but we did give people something to read that was informative if not entertaining.

Oststar
21st Apr 2005, 03:12
What's the point of nice graphics if one can't enjoy watching them during a game instead of having to rapid fire off a series of keystrokes and mouse clicks. One of the only real issues I had with RTW was the high speed at which combat and movement transpired.

I'd really like for the full game to have a speed slider, if I can't pause and issue orders, being able to crank down the speed to would be the next best thing. I could then slow down the action, issue orders, then speed it back up to watch it resolve.

Slowing down speed would be a nice little feature, that way I could watch a little more, but the intensity is where the battle is IMHO. Still the game could do with a pause feature for some, because all though I like the increased difficulty for IG some people don't and in situations like Cyrenacia your force is so large it tends to become too spread out for efficient control.

I'm not at all convinced artillery works remotely like it should in IG. They absolutely need canister rounds.

I'd like to see grape and canister added: they obviously can as the ships fire grape already, so some of the coding for grape is there, canister would be a variant on grape in many ways (Increased damage, etc, shortened range).


Which is probably why a lot of people, myself included, have had problems getting it to work. Passing through a friendly deployed line with a cavalry charge was something to avoid, not something to encourage. I have been playing the demo using more correct tactics for the period the game covers. I'm certain a lot of people who have a more of a background with miniature wargames or with the scholarly side also have had similar issues.

Yes I noted that passing a cavalry squadron through an infantry battalion shouldn't work so well. Not a massive issue for myself, i'd like to see it fixed.


Which is an example of one of the complaints I, and others, have about IG.

Yes a complaint, but it's hardly worht not buying the game.


Yeah, someone told me that about Axis & Allies from Atari. I wasted my money on that game, which pretty much cemented my decision to never trust them with it again. I should have stopped at MOO3.

I never bought axis and allies, nor will I: it looked mediocre at best. Are you talking about AA or AA2 though? And what's MOO?


See, I don't even like DC.

Personnally neither do I, but it's an example of how mods increased it's popularity. Personally give me Battlegroup anyday.


EA is the devil.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/adamrainer/Forum%20Sigs/eanazi3tm.gif

I don't think there are many not on their payroll that would disagree...



If the developers would respond here or on the TAFN site about what they are looking at following the feedback from the demo, I'm sure a lot of people would no longer have a reason to complain. May not stop em from complaining, but they'd not have a reason.

Yes i'd like to see more devs talking to the community too. Sad that won't happen.


Hey, if someone gives me a copy of the game, I may even install it on my HD, should I go ahead and not purchase it. However, the strategic level had better kick butt for me to spend the time for the install. I can play any number of other RTS games, but I want a good strategic level of the game to go with a decent tactical level.


And I am sadly disappointed there's not going to be a multiplayer campaign ability.

That would have been good to see, I wonder why it wasn't included? The mechanics too difficult perhaps?


Sedan... <sigh> Stupidly led cavalry are going to get slaughtered even when facing boyscouts armed with slingshots.

from what I've read of Sedan they weren't that poorly led, they never got anywhere near their targets because the breechloaders could bring down more cavalry in once volley than Napoleonic grenadiers could dream of.


I really think it's an argument over semantics at this point. Previously, dragoon's weren't considered cavalry, then became part of the arm, then changed back to being infantry transported via horseback, then back again, etc.

And yet these Russians fought from horseback (as well as on foot: it depends on the situation) and i've yet to read a historian who classes them as infantry.


I'd not classify dismounted French knights advanced against the English at Agincourt as a "cavalry charge".

From what you're saying about the Russian cavalry in WWII you'd not classify it as a charge if they were on their horses.


I'm not certain the less whining is due to your own whining about it, but rather that you and I changed the tone of the thread a bit. Maybe that's a bit egocentric of me, but we did give people something to read that was informative if not entertaining.

Yes I suppose we did give them something different to read in a way. Did the read it though, that's the question.

Khornish
21st Apr 2005, 06:17
I never bought axis and allies, nor will I: it looked mediocre at best. Are you talking about AA or AA2 though? And what's MOO?

Don't have a lot of time to respond or reply, but wanted to get this answered.

Axis and Allies (The RTS) published by Atari. Horrible and criminal abuse of the name and vastly below expectations of those familiar with the boardgame.

Tactical side was same RTS as we've seen before and the strategic side, while borrowing the map from the boardgame, was utter crap. They didn't even bother to try to make the strategic game multiplayer.

MOO3 is Masters of Orion 3. Atari also published this piece of trash. Bugged beyond the pale, which was only partially resolved through a couple half-hearted patches. A gold plated turd.

A&A+MOO3 = no more of my money ever for Atari.