PDA

View Full Version : Official Conformation Of Stand/hold Ground Option In Full Version Of Ig.



BANANAMAN
20th Apr 2005, 15:07
Hereby I would like to ask Eidos and Pyrostudios to please give us at this forum or at their official Imperial Glory website an official statement that the full version of IG DOES have a hold/stand ground option. I realy would like to know because seeing in the IG demo it's not nice to see your men moving around while you did not gave them the order.

Thank you Eidos and Pyrostudios.

mob
20th Apr 2005, 20:49
an admin posted elsewhere so we arent going to get one

eidos please make more statements you keep your costumers happy

BANANAMAN
20th Apr 2005, 21:37
an admin posted elsewhere so we arent going to get one

What do you mean with 'posted elsewhere'? :confused: What and where did an admin posted? Sorry dude, but I dont understand your newspaper headlines, lol. :D

psycduty
24th Apr 2005, 20:27
the hold/stand ground option i dont think will be included as the moral option indicates whether or not a unit is going to run away or not.
Also you have the option of automatic attack in the HUD already they will just fire at the enemy not engage them in close combat. Also a unit wont attack (unless its on autoattack) unless its been ordered to by you! so the reason for needing one in here isnt very important. However in games such as cossacks where ure units attack anything that moves and then gains ground after stand ground buttons are highly important.

jaywalker2309
25th Apr 2005, 17:13
an admin posted elsewhere so we arent going to get one

eidos please make more statements you keep your costumers happy

Was this a user called `admin`?

pawnsacrifice
30th Apr 2005, 17:36
so super mod are you saying that they are not going to improve the game or what?

mob
30th Apr 2005, 18:29
erm i dont remember saying any of that lol

quantic
30th Apr 2005, 18:34
Personally I think a hold ground option is unrealistic in terms of how a commander would have controlled his troops in the napoleonic period. Similarly a pause option. Why??? I like the idea of having to think on the hoof and not getting a second chance.

screamingpalm
30th Apr 2005, 22:47
I'm still surprised that noone else is bothered by the 100% casualties, fight to the last man battles.

Guevara
30th Apr 2005, 23:51
the hold/stand ground option i dont think will be included as the moral option indicates whether or not a unit is going to run away or not.
Also you have the option of automatic attack in the HUD already they will just fire at the enemy not engage them in close combat. Also a unit wont attack (unless its on autoattack) unless its been ordered to by you! so the reason for needing one in here isnt very important. However in games such as cossacks where ure units attack anything that moves and then gains ground after stand ground buttons are highly important.

Dude wut the hell are u talking about. a stand ground option is needed!!! In this game the troops freakin change formation completely to fire. Besides like in MTW they had a stand groud option along with morale indicators. Thats ridiculous to leave any of the two out. Fight to the death, nobody did that, people ran.. Its freakin stupid! arg. makes me mad.

Zeus Commander
1st May 2005, 04:01
hopefully in the final game you can at least withdraw and your troops will completely run away sometimes. Anyone know about this...

Someone said that hold ground would be under the tactics pop up that was disabled in the demo...

jaywalker2309
1st May 2005, 12:46
hopefully in the final game you can at least withdraw and your troops will completely run away sometimes. Anyone know about this...

Someone said that hold ground would be under the tactics pop up that was disabled in the demo...

I believe you are able to run off the map and `escape`. I am not part of the test team so cannot 100% confirm that for you, but will try and get answer on Tuesday (is a bank holiday here on Monday)

As for holding ground as long as you dont have units set to auto attack, they will stand their ground until engaged in hand to hand (or they get scared)

Zeus Commander
1st May 2005, 16:12
ok but hopefully the computer will also retreat and not always fight to the death, just curious, were there a lot of all out completely decisive battles during the Napoleonic Wars?

sick
1st May 2005, 16:49
When the computer thinks the situation is hopeless it will retreat. Then you get the chance to persue the fleeing enemy. Three things can happen when you decide to do this:
You don't capture a single enemy;
You do;
Or you get ambushed.

When you manage to capture enemies you can decide to release them (gives you more sympathy), or you can execute them (sympathy drops.)

The computer also has these options when you decide to retreat.

Zeus Commander
1st May 2005, 16:55
Wow now that is way way cooler than I thought. I originally thought there were A Lot of problems and things that were left out of the game but I still thought it was amazing. Now im continously finding out that those problems I thought were in the game were actually nonexistant and there were already better solutions for them then I had actually hoped for. Sry if this is hard to read [tryin to multitask here] :D :D :D :D

psycduty
2nd May 2005, 18:48
People wouldnt fight to the death etc stand ground is probably the gayest tactic ever unless your one on one with infantry, to be honest u wont need stand ground in this game, purely because you wouldnt have a real 'stand ground' in real life and at the time, if your side thought "nuts to this" then theres not alot you can do, its mainly moral based, probably a 'stand ground' meter or probabitlity scale that u can tell how much a unit can withstand before it runs off.
And calm down mate, its only a tactic no need to get angry.

pawnsacrifice
2nd May 2005, 19:09
what are you talking about mob...... I said super mod d b d b d b

colmde
5th May 2005, 13:17
Similarly a pause option. Why???

The pause option makes up for the fact that the computer is able to give hundreds of orders in an instant. It gives you the option to do it too...

Picotrain
5th May 2005, 13:28
The computer may be able to make hundereds of calculations, but it still lacks the instinct a human has. Like if I send my calvary off to the side, a human would probably try and counter that by protecting their artillery, or taking out the calvary before they try and use their artillery. The computer, on the other hand, will disregard this action, assuming the human just likes sending pretty horses out gallavanting about. This, nor any other arguement, is good enough to support having a pause feature in battle so you can issue orders. Everyone is complaining about realism... would it be realistic if Napoleon decided everybody must stop fighting for a second so he can think and issue orders? I thought not.

Cheers,
Picotrain

psycduty
7th May 2005, 22:42
Actually, a computer can send over a million, billion messages a minute, all in a code u wouldnt even imagine how complex to understand.
Now once you get over this then your okay, the AI system in this game, aswell as all other games is often 'pre-set' by the designers, who set up what 'may happen' and code it into the AI of the other side. It is this AI (if anyone hasnt figured out what AI means by now it means Artificial Intelligence) that judges your move- like in chess, and then reacts accordingly which is why Bananaman stated that the enemy gets pissed off and all start charging at you when you fire on them with your cannon. But saying that, someone has to make a move and if your not going to then the AI mightaswell, also has anyone actually gone for the offensive on Cyrenia? I managed to with only 200 casualties.
If the AI has no preset configurations then it relies on a new system that was developed for Lord of the Rings due to the millions of fighting units and not being able to afford that many actors :D
Basically you place inputs into a sort of 'calculator' these range from Unit size, Moral, Speed, Weaponry, Armour, Strength etc etc, then you pitch these guys out with eachother (obviously against another 'calculated' army) and they go at it like rabbits, bearing in mind that theyre only purpose when you put in that information is to fight each other to the death or until they run away.
This is sort of similar to the one i said above, but the previous one was for situations and not the one which ive just stated which was for encounters etc.
Really we are at the stage where AI will take over the military, unless it already has done, in which case i fear there will be a mix up of the plot to I Robot (without the good ending) and the action of Terminator (without the good ending)
Either way...were doomed! (just an apocalyptic approach there)

jaywalker2309
8th May 2005, 09:18
The best AI programming u can get is when the programmer has covered every single possible `what ifs` in the game. If this is done then the game will act `human` as it will know a response to every question.

Terms like adaptive AI etc are just buzz words, where the programmer has multiple answers to the question and the AI records its previous answer and just alternates based on parameters. its all amazingly clever stuff to code, but will never replace another human.

:)

psycduty
8th May 2005, 16:28
I can rely on an AI to pwn n00bs, but l33t players always manage to find the nacks in the game which the AI's cant lol.

saddletank
9th May 2005, 00:29
units [...] will stand their ground until engaged in hand to hand (or they get scared)

May I ask you - is that an OFFICIAL confirmation that the game will have a morale system?

If so, please tell us why you didn't mention this before? 90% of the grief on this forum in the last 3 weeks has been about the lack of a morale system in the demo.

psycduty
9th May 2005, 06:58
THERE IS A MORAL SYSTEM, otherwise my men wouldnt have ran away alot....
cos im certain i didnt order them! Unless the other side did :rolleyes:
lol.
Thats why stand ground in close combat is a fruitless effort, as it wont work etc etc...