PDA

View Full Version : Uniformless stick-fighters



Anakin Skywalker
24th Apr 2005, 12:06
On several screens there are shown some uniformless "soldiers" "armed" with sticks or something. Isn't that stupid? On the battlefields of the 19.th century there was no use of stick fighters. If the unit limit is 2.000 men I want to see 2.000 real soldiers, like musketeers, dragoons and artillery and not stick fighters!

BANANAMAN
24th Apr 2005, 12:20
I think that Pyrostudios was inspirated by the mini-serie of Les Miserables where you had dissatisfied locals & rebels arming themselves with whatever they could find against the official profesional army.

And I think they implemented it for three reasons:

* For the player when he does not have enough gold he can still recruit an army, an very cheap army: the stick-men

* Whenever there will be street fighting or fightings around several buildings those stick-men are very useful.

* (I suppose, I think:) They are very good at close combat and are able to pin down an enemy formation long enough to let your own infantry go inline shooting the enemy formation to pieces.

saddletank
24th Apr 2005, 15:51
I agree Skywalker, it's crap, completely unrealistic and should never have been done. The game claims they are 'militia', 'landwehr' or 'opolchenie' depending on the nation, but even these basic raw troops would be uniformed and carry muskets. Some Russian Opolchenie were armed with pikes, but all other nations militia types had muskets (although maybe not much ammunition).

It's a sop to players who don't know the period; if 'militia' were uniformed correctly they'd look a lot like line infantry and those poor people who didn't know the difference between line infantry and landwher would get all confused and moan to the publishers... ;)

Another silly gamey non-historical mistake from this 'accurate historical' game :(

Cro_Knight
24th Apr 2005, 17:16
they should have a mix of clubs muskets and pikes swords and axes all in one unit of soldiers it would look like a mob that is ready to defend there homeland sounds better with more weapons
like why would the nations make al these clubs wtf

Berdan
24th Apr 2005, 17:21
the militia unit doesn't have a ranged attack it can only melee

psycduty
24th Apr 2005, 18:55
I only have one opinion of militia and that is Meat Shield.
I only think they are usefull for absorbing attacks whilst your core troops perform manouevres behind them!
Theyre cheap, and if they kill one or two of the enemy then theyve outperformed my expectations.
However the might be good at flank or rear attacks, so i think the nickname "Bum Bandits" would suit them ^^ lol

sick
24th Apr 2005, 18:59
the militia unit doesn't have a ranged attack it can only melee

So they can as well be called Meleetia. :p


I only think they are usefull for absorbing attacks whilst your core troops perform manouevres behind them!

Yup, I would rather have my Militia in hand-to-hand combat than my precious Grenzers.

BANANAMAN
24th Apr 2005, 19:16
I only have one opinion of militia and that is Meat Shield.
I only think they are usefull for absorbing attacks whilst your core troops perform manouevres behind them!

I already said that but in an other sentence, lol. :D

Thank you for the conformation though, I like that. :)

BANANAMAN
24th Apr 2005, 19:23
Come on saddletank, this pc game Imperial Glory is mostly about fun not about the exact historical stuff.

Imperial Glory is not a historical documentaire from the Discovery Channel you know. ;)

psycduty
24th Apr 2005, 20:12
I wasnt being anal .... lol i just like the idea of sending useless men to meaningless deaths :D
actually if its well researched then the game can be very entertaining, means its well thought out like brothers in arms, thats based on a true story, the weapon physics and tactics are as close to real life as possible too

Cro_Knight
24th Apr 2005, 20:49
yea like militia are suddenly goin to go ram the imperial guard up the A$$ lol
i think we could all get where he was coming from

BANANAMAN
24th Apr 2005, 21:08
Yeah! Unleash those angry stick-men! Those cheap scums! :D

fat_man
24th Apr 2005, 21:24
I think that Pyrostudios was inspirated by the mini-serie of Les Miserables where you had dissatisfied locals & rebels arming themselves with whatever they could find against the official profesional army.

And I think they implemented it for three reasons:

* For the player when he does not have enough gold he can still recruit an army, an very cheap army: the stick-men

* Whenever there will be street fighting or fightings around several buildings those stick-men are very useful.

* (I suppose, I think:) They are very good at close combat and are able to pin down an enemy formation long enough to let your own infantry go inline shooting the enemy formation to pieces.

Cheap,EXpendable Hell that all i need from them lol :)

Zeus Commander
25th Apr 2005, 01:12
Omg!!! It is literally impossible to make the game historically accurate and they were correct to make these militia units to make the game more enjoyable. We dont even know how they will be used in the game yet. Mabe they cant even be taken out of allied territory. Theres a perfect balance of historical accuracy and gameplay and Imperial Glory is real close.

Irish2
25th Apr 2005, 02:13
Actually, it was very common in this time for common workers to band together with whatever weapons they had and make concentrated attacks. The peasants both during the French Revolution and afterward in the southeast of France to attack the national guard, who were organized in column. The peasants were armed with pitchfork, axes, and reaping tools. Spanish guerillas often fought the french with non traditional weapons. The Russians had regiments of men who trained and fought with wooden guns that did not fire but were attached with bayonet.

You also must understand that there were not factories as we know them today. Outfitting hundreds of thousands of men with muskets took a considerable amount of time. Certainly if a country was attacked in force and had to defend its own land. It would not be unheard of for peasants to take up arms in organized fashion if their homeland was threatened.

Now, I would hope that you can't take these militia on a campaign. They should only be used for defens of a homeland. The club or stick in their hands just represents whatever non traditional weapon they got their hands on.

saddletank
25th Apr 2005, 12:41
So they can as well be called Meleetia.

Argh! Noooooo, the horror! :)

saddletank
25th Apr 2005, 12:44
Actually, it was very common in this time for common workers to band together with whatever weapons they had and make concentrated attacks.

But not on a formal battlefield. I feel this is Pyro saying "Hmmm...Total War has peasants as it's basic unit, we need a basic unit for the start of campaigns when players can't build expensive units, so we must have something similar. Well I saw Les Miserables the other night so we could have unarmed rabble..."

I expect the 'militia' or 'peasant' unit will be the first unit in the techtree you can build - just like in Total War *yawn*.

psycduty
25th Apr 2005, 14:49
Surely thousands of armed, cheap and swearing militia on the battlefield is an awe inspiring sight! lol :D
one tactic of mine was just to get soldiers of one class (mostly medium for the time) and just get armies upon armies of them, it doesnt matter if the enemy has bowmen or anything, you can put more men of a decent skill on the battlefield! the only problem was cavalry, but then u just level ure armies out with some sort of heavy cavalry (light cavalry are for puffs) or pike/spearmen.
I guess ill just put as many men of different types on the battlefield cos they all look good!!! :D
(plus the fact this is TOTALLY different to Total War :p )

(type name here)
27th Apr 2005, 22:05
What! Don't like stick people? Don't you remember the very first tactics ever developed in history (somewhere during the early cenozoic period)? Take a whole group of people and charge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

saddletank
28th Apr 2005, 17:10
My favourite cenozoic tactic was always to hide in a group of trees and hurl rocks.

Cracker Mouth
4th May 2005, 21:37
But not on a formal battlefield. I feel this is Pyro saying "Hmmm...Total War has peasants as it's basic unit, we need a basic unit for the start of campaigns when players can't build expensive units, so we must have something similar. Well I saw Les Miserables the other night so we could have unarmed rabble..."

I expect the 'militia' or 'peasant' unit will be the first unit in the techtree you can build - just like in Total War *yawn*.

That's the worst arguement I've EVER heard. They didn't do it to be "just like in Total War". In almost every strategy game there is a melee unit avaiable for you at the very bottom of the tech tree. And by your logic Total War copied numerous other games since they have, oh lets say archers. Total war must of copied Age of Empires, right? They have archers too.

saddletank
5th May 2005, 11:30
My point was why have a basic melee only unit at the bottom of the tech tree? It has no parallel with reality in the Napoleonic period. It's a gamey anachronism. At least in ancient and medieval games you can argue for their inclusion on a historical basis but by 1800 on the battlefield? You can't, all units no matter how basic, had firearms. Or if you were Russia you chose to send Opolchenie into battle armed only with pikes because you'd spent your treasury income on a huge army already.

Which is why I suggested this feature is a direct copy of R:TW (or any other RTS you care to mention). It shows lack of imagination. It shows IG will be very much like many other RTS map/battlefield games in it's basic approach.

That's why I made the post.

And wow, people are sure touchy round here if R:TW gets a mention, even a teeny one. Even a teeny one as a passing example in an otherwise free standing argument.

IronChancellor
5th May 2005, 12:13
I agree with saddletank here, I hope their will be a way to cut this unit out through a mod. In Total War the AI had a tendency to build alot of peasent armies. It won't be much fun if the same thing happens with this game. These "stick-fighters" should have little morale, one shot of artillery should send them running for their lives.

LondonCalling
7th May 2005, 19:12
French militia, and I forget the french term, but they carried hatchets.

Bellum
7th May 2005, 20:00
It is a game!

Use the militia if you want. I can not see why militia is not historical correct. When playing this game you will probbably do something that did not happend in the real history. Then you will end upp playing a game totally not historical.

This is a game that you can experiment with history in a fun way. And in doing soo its great that you can experiment with militia if you want, maybee you can not afford better troops.

Stop whining about features in the game that is not historically corect. If you want it historically correct read the history in a book. Games are for fun and experimentations.

screamingpalm
7th May 2005, 23:06
It is a game!

Use the militia if you want. I can not see why militia is not historical correct. When playing this game you will probbably do something that did not happend in the real history. Then you will end upp playing a game totally not historical.

This is a game that you can experiment with history in a fun way. And in doing soo its great that you can experiment with militia if you want, maybee you can not afford better troops.

Stop whining about features in the game that is not historically corect. If you want it historically correct read the history in a book. Games are for fun and experimentations.

Here we go again with the same worn out fanboy argument. The advertisers of this game did it to themselves with the way they marketed this game. It drew a hardcore Napoleonic wargame community in, and now that key elements are missing (yes VERY key elements) and those customers are disappointed, do you really expect them to just sit quietly? Don't sit there and tell others how they should feel about something. Sure it's just a game, but with such nice graphics and some potential in gameplay, people should be allowed their opinions and criticisms to hopefully make a better game out of it. I for one have pre-ordered my copy and therefore feel that I have a right to tell the company what I would like out of it as a paying customer, and feel that I have rented some time on these boards until I realize that either a) the developers are listening and will fix an issue that many others besides myself are asking for, or b) it is a hopeless cause and I will trade the game in and move on to greener pastures, with a disgruntled opinion about future purchases from this company.

Really the only issue I have is the morale system. I may over-exaggerate about other features in a light way, but if they could at least fix that, I could live with the rest. I like to experiment with history in a fun way too, but if the game isnt at least realistic enough to simulate history, whats the point? I like to re-create the great battles of the era. Try out different things and say what if this happened, and then see the outcome. Without a certain level of realism this is pointless. Everyone has their own ideas of what is 'fun'. Thank-you.

Khornish
7th May 2005, 23:12
There were some unruly mobs in the early revolutionary period. I think I remember a few "units" of French patriots that went into battle with not much more than farm tools.

However, as much as I would hope to not see these units on a regular battlefield, I do think they could be used to represent the Paris mobs, Spanish guerillas, Vendee insurrectionists, etc.

I'm not going to be upset about it in these instances. On the other hand, if the computer builds them for use in its field armies in the mid and late game, I'm going to be concerned about the quality of the AI.

Sol Invictus
8th May 2005, 00:17
I am confident that some hotshot modder will delete the "stickmen" from the army roster. For me, the key to this game being a success is the same as RTW, modability.

Bellum
8th May 2005, 08:23
Here we go again with the same worn out fanboy argument. The advertisers of this game did it to themselves with the way they marketed this game. It drew a hardcore Napoleonic wargame community in, and now that key elements are missing (yes VERY key elements) and those customers are disappointed, do you really expect them to just sit quietly? Don't sit there and tell others how they should feel about something. Sure it's just a game, but with such nice graphics and some potential in gameplay, people should be allowed their opinions and criticisms to hopefully make a better game out of it. I for one have pre-ordered my copy and therefore feel that I have a right to tell the company what I would like out of it as a paying customer, and feel that I have rented some time on these boards until I realize that either a) the developers are listening and will fix an issue that many others besides myself are asking for, or b) it is a hopeless cause and I will trade the game in and move on to greener pastures, with a disgruntled opinion about future purchases from this company.

Really the only issue I have is the morale system. I may over-exaggerate about other features in a light way, but if they could at least fix that, I could live with the rest. I like to experiment with history in a fun way too, but if the game isnt at least realistic enough to simulate history, whats the point? I like to re-create the great battles of the era. Try out different things and say what if this happened, and then see the outcome. Without a certain level of realism this is pointless. Everyone has their own ideas of what is 'fun'. Thank-you.

I agree with you :)

I was refering to the whiners who can not stand "sticks"... what if a revolution happens to a country? I dont think all the commoners had guns... etc etc

I do want a historicaly correct settings for the game, no doubt!

Bellum
8th May 2005, 08:28
I'm not going to be upset about it in these instances. On the other hand, if the computer builds them for use in its field armies in the mid and late game, I'm going to be concerned about the quality of the AI.

If this happens I will go back to the store for a refund! :cool:

Khornish
8th May 2005, 12:27
If this happens I will go back to the store for a refund! :cool:

Unforunately, that's not an option for most folks living in the USA. The majority of software retailers refuse to refund any money on an opened computer game and many won't even give store credit. Once a game's package has been opened (even if the CD/DVD container is still shrinkwrapped) it is no longer returnable/refundable.

There are a few exceptions, but this is the rule and has been such for a long time.

screamingpalm
8th May 2005, 22:29
I agree with you :)

I was refering to the whiners who can not stand "sticks"... what if a revolution happens to a country? I dont think all the commoners had guns... etc etc

I do want a historicaly correct settings for the game, no doubt!

Sorry I directed that at you, I really meant it to be more in general about some of the posts on here. I have no opinion either way yet on the stick-issue until I get the full version. My main concern is still morale, I always have Rome:TW to go back to if IG doesnt implement it. RTW may not be perfect, but it is still a great game.

Bellum
8th May 2005, 22:48
Sorry I directed that at you, I really meant it to be more in general about some of the posts on here. I have no opinion either way yet on the stick-issue until I get the full version. My main concern is still morale, I always have Rome:TW to go back to if IG doesnt implement it. RTW may not be perfect, but it is still a great game.

Apology accepted :)

Then about morale, I do not know how accurate this FAQ is:

http://www.tafn.info/TAFN/imperialglory/html/info_FAQ%20IG.php

But one of the questions and answers are:

Will there be a morale system for units as well as a fatigue factor?

Yes, morale will feature.

saddletank
9th May 2005, 00:22
It is a game!

Stop whining about features in the game that is not historically corect. If you want it historically correct read the history in a book. Games are for fun and experimentations.

Fine then, I'll use the X-Wing fighters Pyro will have included because 'it's a game' and historical accuracy is clearly not valued by 110% of the gaming community. I think you're talking bollocks. And I think you know it.

Bellum
9th May 2005, 07:26
Fine then, I'll use the X-Wing fighters Pyro will have included because 'it's a game' and historical accuracy is clearly not valued by 110% of the gaming community. I think you're talking bollocks. And I think you know it.

:eek: X-Wing fighters?

This thread started concerning "sticky" :D warriors, and thats what I am aming at in my post. Forgive me for beeing a little unclear in the post. It was not meant to bash all other concerns for some features, i.e. morale, sightings etc.

But your answer to me seems loud and clear, me talking bollocks? Wonder what using "X-Wing fighters" in this argumentation is called? :confused:

It also seems you failed to read my following post after that one, if you had you should have find out that I too want a historicaly correct game. No more to add in this matter. :)

0ver and 0ut! :cool: