PDA

View Full Version : SPEED - it does not go SLOW enough



jonwia
28th Apr 2005, 19:39
This appears to be a marvelloous real-time game, absolutely breath taking close up views showing great attention to detail.

But I like the historical feel and reality above all and to achieve this, I should be able to slow down my units to real life speed if I like it this way.
This certainly cannot be a great difficulty and I understand that many just want to have things fly by quickly, but I would like to watch the units wheel and move, particularly when they are closer than 200 meters, in real time speed or even slower, so that I can truly enjoy the close up wonderful detail that you have taken so much time to program and so that I can have reality.

After all, pls consider that a real general did not jump around issuing orders to every single unit throughout a battle - but I, in such games, must do so. That is partially why we have pause buttons, but in your game, in the pause mode, I can order nothing
.... and this is also, for me the realist, a great mistake as long as you have me micro-managing my units.

mob
28th Apr 2005, 20:06
please stop your type keep repeating whats been said 100s of times and it is stupid to have a pause botun and anyway other people wont have micro management so why should you?

Villaret-Joyeuse
28th Apr 2005, 20:31
Mob, if you read his post correctly, you see he is only advocating the use of a pause button "as long as you have me micro-managing my units"

Plus, do not be a jerk to a guy whose making his first post, especially one that is fairly eloquently written compared to some of the crap that I've seen posted....

I'm tired of reading: "U gis sux, IG ruls!"

BANANAMAN
28th Apr 2005, 20:44
What jonwia pleaded for or requested from Pyrostudios is to implement a gamespeed-slider into Imperial Glory.

There is nothing difficult about what jonwia is trying to say here I think. :rolleyes: :D

Joe 98
29th Apr 2005, 05:22
You don’t need to give orders to individual orders

You can use the mouse to highlight groups and give the same order to them all in one go.

However, due to the nature we need to micro manage

Svend Karlson
15th May 2005, 09:51
I'd like to add support to the call for slower speed and an active-pause function.

My previous experience of a game where the real-time combat lacked an active-pause function was Ground Control II. I believe GCII was a good game but I uninstalled it 2 hours after installing it out of frustration & promised myself I would never again buy a game without active-pause.

I enjoy having the *option* to take my time & ponder, so I really would appreciate that choice being available. As much as I look forward to a game like IG I think I'll hold off on purchasing until I see whether something is done in this area.

Commisar Adam
15th May 2005, 15:12
I've encountered a similar issue in this game. My units insist on breaking formation to traverse and fire. This causes huge gaps in my line. And since the enenmy moves at such tremendous speed, they immediatly exploit the gap. Slower speeds would definately enable players to attend to threats far easier. The fast speeds makes the outcome of a battle completly dependednt on how fast you click.

Sol Invictus
15th May 2005, 15:50
I think many people; basicly the historical realism crowd; will be turned off of this game if the speeds can't be slowed down. That was a huge issue with RTW as well and it was modded to a certain extent. Hopefully, either a patch or mod can slow down combat to a sensible degree. If not, I and many others will simply give this game a pass. I would like to enjoy this game, but I can't accept a clickfest.

Svend Karlson
15th May 2005, 17:58
I would like to enjoy this game, but I can't accept a clickfest.

I'd actually say that I'm probably a slower than average gamer, playing games like Combat Mission & Soliders: HoWWII on the tactical scale, and games like Total War and Hearts of Iron on the strategic scale.

Perhaps I am not part of the target market for Imperial Glory, but I can hope! :)

The Penitant Man
16th May 2005, 12:14
please stop your type keep repeating whats been said 100s of times and it is stupid to have a pause botun and anyway other people wont have micro management so why should you?

mob, you are a first class bore.

Oststar
16th May 2005, 12:56
mob, you are a first class bore.

You mean boor...

And I dislike the term "clickfest" it is derogatory, just because you can't think or act fast doesn't make it bad. I like having to be decisive, even if it means butchering my Blackwatch because I didn't stop and consider. I can really feel the pace of battle when I have to make quick decisions. I prefer that to stoping and thinking about everything.

The Penitant Man
16th May 2005, 13:16
You mean boor...



Er, no.

I meant bore. As in one who "wearies or annoys with tediousness".

I would concede he is also a boor, though.

Stereophobia
16th May 2005, 14:49
I dislike the term "clickfest" it is derogatory, just because you can't think or act fast doesn't make it bad. I like having to be decisive, even if it means butchering my Blackwatch because I didn't stop and consider. I can really feel the pace of battle when I have to make quick decisions. I prefer that to stoping and thinking about everything.

By using a speed slider, you could have your fast paced, decisive battles, the realism crowd could have the slow, steady thinking/tactical battles, and everyone else could find a pace that suits them.

I think its a good idea

Sol Invictus
16th May 2005, 15:06
Yes, choice is the key. For those who want a non-thinking, shallow, spasmodic, thrill-ride, let them joyously click to their hearts content. For those who prefer their combat at a more sedate speed at which tactical decisions can be weighed without the need for constant pausing; have at it. I see no point in making the game nice looking if we don't have time to actually watch our soldiers carry out our orders in all their majesty.

Yorkie
16th May 2005, 15:17
i can see both side of the argument here like.

haveing a speed control has its benifits as stated a many post like -
time to get your grand plan working ,
speeding up the game for mundane tasks like mopping up, getting into poss etc.
and having a nice look at the nice uniforms :)

but like another post said It may be a desgin feature..
to recreate the hectic and quite frustrating experiance of the time period where communication was conducted by runners.

it may just be possible that the game may or may not be shipped out with ths speed function / pause order function BUT the tallented mod community that will arise or rising maybe able to implement it.

either way it will ship out as is..

Stereophobia
16th May 2005, 16:54
Well even if its not in now, it should be a simple thing to patch in at a later date, along with morale (with the option to disable it for the arcade gamers)

Villaret-Joyeuse
16th May 2005, 19:55
Even if they include a slide bar for speed, they would have to slow down some of the units in general as infantry can run too fast, especially in line.

Webrider
16th May 2005, 22:45
I was about to post to ask the very same questions.... I played the demo.. it looked good but sucked game play wise. I am entitled to my opinion... when the cav charge through two line formations and 4 squares to get to the artillery there was absolutly no stopping them...

If I want to slow the game down .. or pause it to give orders ... I expect to be able to do that in Solo play.... If I cant then its features that are lacking pure and simple.

In my opinion they are so concerned with not being RTW, and you have to admit, this is a Rome Total War, Medevil Total War, Shogun Total War knock off... which I am not against btw.. I just want the features I want. Yes thats self serving .. but in a Solo game thats what you are (Self Serving) Is the campaighn multiplayer... No its SOLO only so most of my game play will be solo. I have bought computer games for 20 years now ... I will own this one at some price point and that point will solely be determined by the features they provide... If they addressed the issues that concern me after the demo I will pay 40 bucks for the game... if not it will be 20 or even 10 before I buy it. For solo play I dont care if its current and hot. Their market is people who probably have 100 other games... if they make it worth while for us to put down our current favorite we will. Hell I still play the old Talon Soft Napoleonic series of games, they will always be among my favorites.

If your going to take an all day battle and condense it down into 20 min of game time you need to be able to slow it down at critical points and micro manage if your playing solo and believe you should be able to .....

I was going to post to ask these very questions befor buying the game .. I guess I have my answer. Time control in battles and pause to give orders.
I also wanted the campaighn game to be multiplayer... now that would have been different and I might have let them slide on claiming not to be like the Total War Series.... The Naval Battles are a great addition. I will be disappointed if you can't chose speed and pause to give orders there as well

Oststar
16th May 2005, 23:21
...For those who want a non-thinking, shallow, spasmodic, thrill-ride, let them joyously click to their hearts content...

Oh so you think that because I can think and act faster than you I must be some kind of troglodite? "Realism Crowd" Like said before, a real General or even a real Brigadier wouldn't issue as many orders in an hour as you give in a minute on IG. It's more realistic to have to think and fight on the fly, which is closer to what a General had to do; surely you don't think Ney stood and thought "If only God had included a pause button".

I've also noticed that if I set my battles up correctly I don't need to give orders very often, as opposed to mistakes leading to more and more orders needed. My informed opinion then is that you regularly get yourself in difficult situations and try to click yourself back out.

(Rolling again, eh Khornish?)



For those who prefer their combat at a more sedate speed at which tactical decisions can be weighed without the need for constant pausing; have at it. I see no point in making the game nice looking if we don't have time to actually watch our soldiers carry out our orders in all their majesty.

I never need to pause beyond if my phone rings etc, I usually have time to watch the game work itself out and reach an end result. If you want slower speed and an active pause I wont disagree with that, just don't resort to calling those who can act faster than you "shallow clickfests"...

Oststar
16th May 2005, 23:31
I was about to post to ask the very same questions.... I played the demo.. it looked good but sucked game play wise. I am entitled to my opinion... when the cav charge through two line formations and 4 squares to get to the artillery there was absolutly no stopping them...

Obviously you just have no skill if that happens, what are you, a gamespy reviewer? Rating games low because you can't win isn't acceptable.


If I want to slow the game down .. or pause it to give orders ... I expect to be able to do that in Solo play.... If I cant then its features that are lacking pure and simple.

Why? Because you have no skill and have to pause? "IF I can't" lots of "i" use din your sentence, obviously you don't think much of others.


In my opinion they are so concerned with not being RTW, and you have to admit, this is a Rome Total War, Medevil Total War, Shogun Total War knock off... which I am not against btw..

No, it isn't, I may shock you but RTW and MTW were both based on another game, most games are, however even if RTW hadn't existed IG would have, pyros has done this totally independant of RTW. Maybe if you spent sometime thinking instead of spouting off or knew some coding you'd appreaciate this fact.


I just want the features I want. Yes thats self serving .. but in a Solo game thats what you are (Self Serving) Is the campaighn multiplayer... No its SOLO only so most of my game play will be solo.

So you want a game tailor made to you... I think a lot of us do but we aren't going to get it, and insulting the game and the devs won't get it either. So far the devs have been fantastic, they listened when things were requested, maybe now they'll add a time slider, which i'm neither for or against.


I have bought computer games for 20 years now ... I will own this one at some price point and that point will solely be determined by the features they provide... If they addressed the issues that concern me after the demo I will pay 40 bucks for the game... if not it will be 20 or even 10 before I buy it. For solo play I dont care if its current and hot. Their market is people who probably have 100 other games... if they make it worth while for us to put down our current favorite we will. Hell I still play the old Talon Soft Napoleonic series of games, they will always be among my favorites.

I can't see many issues frankly, though I would like to see larger battles and lancers effective against squares. Hopefully there is also a bonus against squared infantry when charged by infantry rather than repelling it.


If your going to take an all day battle and condense it down into 20 min of game time you need to be able to slow it down at critical points and micro manage if your playing solo and believe you should be able to .....

I can't see why you need this...


I was going to post to ask these very questions befor buying the game .. I guess I have my answer. Time control in battles and pause to give orders.
I also wanted the campaighn game to be multiplayer... now that would have been different and I might have let them slide on claiming not to be like the Total War Series.... The Naval Battles are a great addition. I will be disappointed if you can't chose speed and pause to give orders there as well

I hope you realise just how hard it is to code a co-op campain, this isn't the TW series and is only a little like it. Speed slider may not be in the game but your precious active pause will be.

Villaret-Joyeuse
17th May 2005, 01:57
I'm not for a pause button that lets you issue orders, but a more realistic speed. If infantry marched as slow as they should, then you would have enough time to issue your orders..

Oststar - I agree, but with your example, Ney would also have commanders with their own initiative. Meaning, unless specificly ordered not to, an general would automatically adjust to the battlefield. (form square, move line etc.) Unfortunately with RTS you have to babysit every single unit.

[Based on demo's speed] - Recommendations:
#1 - Slow down the base speed.
#2 - Put in a speed slider for those who do not want to sit through minutes of the pursuit phase.

As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it. "

[Yes, I know it is too late, but just putting out my opinion. At this point, we will just have to see if we are happy with the product as is or disappoint....]

Captain Darling
17th May 2005, 02:02
Having just played the demo for the first time, I have to say it was awesome, but it did go a little quickly... 11 minutes was the average time for me to win and that was with me still trying to work out what the controls were!

Oststar
17th May 2005, 02:17
I'm not for a pause button that lets you issue orders, but a more realistic speed. If infantry marched as slow as they should, then you would have enough time to issue your orders..

Realistic speed would be nice. I find that so long as it isn't insanely fast or slow i'll enjoy it, even the pursuit phase.


Oststar - I agree, but with your example, Ney would also have commanders with their own initiative. Meaning, unless specificly ordered not to, an general would automatically adjust to the battlefield. (form square, move line etc.) Unfortunately with RTS you have to babysit every single unit.

Yes, I neglected to give a detailed comparation, I suppose we can agree that RTS makes you everyone from God, Head of State, Colonel, Lieutenant and even NCOs, hence you issuse orders from all the levels, from agreeing on new trade routes and alliances to the facing of a battalion. Therefore there is more to do, but saying not having a pause is unrealistic is like saying "Mango's aren't vegtables, we want apples"...



[Based on demo's speed] - Recommendations:
#1 - Slow down the base speed.
#2 - Put in a speed slider for those who do not want to sit through minutes of the pursuit phase.

Again I agree with that, and I also agreed with the active pause because even though I think it takes away from the game and is unnesseccary, some like/need it. The reason I disagree so much with the person who said "clickfest" is simply because of his overwhelming arrogance, I know that some can't play at high speed, hence my favoring the inclusion of an active pause and a slower speed, but though I see it his way, he refuses to see it the other way. He wants to be indecisive and ponder, I want to be decisive and in the action, I can still play this way when it is slower, in fact i'd prefer a realistic speed, if I wanted an unrealistic "clickfest" i'd have bought EE2 by now. Anything IG can include to favour a greater fanbase is good, especially if they can carry it over to MP later, like RoN cannon time (A limited number of minutes in which the opponent can active pause), locked time at higher or lower speeds, etc etc.


(Yes, I know it is too late, but just putting out my opinion. At this point, we will just have to see if we are happy with the product as is or disappoint...)

I'm hoping they will patch a number of things in, on my list is 20 ship battles as the no1 issue.

Captain Darling
17th May 2005, 02:38
I can see myself getting mauled in my first few battles after buying this game, mainly because I'll be in RTW mode; watching my troops marching round in formation and suddenly realising that I've been gazing at them for too long and the enemy's shooting them to pieces! :D

Sol Invictus
17th May 2005, 03:10
Villaret said everything that I was going to say so I will move on now.

Oststar
17th May 2005, 08:09
Villaret said everything that I was going to say so I will move on now.

He put it better than you though: he didn't insult anyone.

Toblakai
17th May 2005, 11:00
Hi there, first post on the forum for me and this topic has gotten me interested enough to reply :D

I can understand the need for a pause button that allows you to issue orders, as it is quite handy (especially in RTW when things happened very quickly), but i can't see the need for it in IG. The movements of men, cavalry and the like seem realistic to me, and ok it might be a bit quick to some but then again back in those days the generals had to think fast and decide quickly.

The pause button that i saw in the demo is good enough as it allows you to relax, take a good look at the battlefield, see where your men need to go and what to do to win. Although it doesnt give you the ability to give orders whilst the game is paused, at least you can unpause the game, give orders then quickly pause the game again.

Also the slider for setting game speed is almost like giving an active pause. For a game based purely on realism (that i can see) i'm suprised they even included a pause feature, so i'd be even more suprised if they include a slider for game speed.

Villaret-Joyeuse
17th May 2005, 12:11
I agree, Oststar, let people play how they want in single player mode. Active pause buttons and/or speed slider would be disabled for multiplayer.

When fighting a computer AI, it is almost necessary to have something, depending on the intelligence of the AI. While a player is running around trying to maintain some semblence of order and control, the AI can square infantry units at opposite ends of the battle, while launching its own counter-attack. While that can be seen as "realistic", it is "unrealistic" that a player, who like you said is running as general, colonel, and lieutenant, could handle the battlefield with equal skill.

As for player vs player, there is an advantage to being able to click and scroll faster. However, that can not make up for poor tactics. :) [Or atleast, it shouldn't......]

Toblakai -
For a game based purely on realism
From what we have seen, this game is not "based purely on realism." There is another thread that points out some of the major unrealistic aspects.

saddletank
17th May 2005, 12:16
The movements of men, cavalry and the like seem realistic to me.

If you mean the time it takes them to cover a given distance then I can assure you they move much too fast in relation to the ranges of their weapons and the apparent scale of the figures and terrain.

Oststar
17th May 2005, 13:52
I agree, Oststar, let people play how they want in single player mode. Active pause buttons and/or speed slider would be disabled for multiplayer.

This could carry over into MP to suit even more groups too, sure a lot of players aren't interested in MP and less active pausers rather than "clickfesters" will want to play MP, but by having options like Cannon Time, Real Speed, Fast Speed, setting all those things will increase MP players.


When fighting a computer AI, it is almost necessary to have something, depending on the intelligence of the AI. While a player is running around trying to maintain some semblence of order and control, the AI can square infantry units at opposite ends of the battle, while launching its own counter-attack. While that can be seen as "realistic", it is "unrealistic" that a player, who like you said is running as general, colonel, and lieutenant, could handle the battlefield with equal skill.

As for player vs player, there is an advantage to being able to click and scroll faster. However, that can not make up for poor tactics. :) [Or atleast, it shouldn't......]

Again I acknowledge that many players can't play at the same speed and don't want to hence my agreement on the speed issue. Yes click speed shouldn't beat superior tactics, and i've yet to see it do so. I've won battles on the demo because I know what i'm doing, not because I click quickly. The other day I ignored tactics and just took screens... I was shocked to see how badly butchered my poorly used Grenadiers were. Still the screens were useful for the clan banner... too bad the HTML makes it auto resize :(


Toblakai -
From what we have seen, this game is not "based purely on realism." There is another thread that points out some of the major unrealistic aspects.

Give us our Square defeating Lanceros!

sniggles
17th May 2005, 14:38
Hi fellow gamers,

This is a good thread and highlights what i myself think is a critical aspect of this game.

I loved the demo like most of you did but found that the battles were over way too quick.

I do prefer a slower pace of game where strategy is more important then quick reactions but i can also play the 'click-fest' if i have to. The problem is not that you need quick reactions but that by having a fast combat engine you are seriously shortening the actual RTS portions of the game and may find you are speeding through the game quicker then you would like.

I do like a game to be realistic and immersive but more importantly if i really enjoy a title - I WANT IT TO LAST AS LONG AS POSSIBLE!

Having a speed slider seems to be an excellent idea and i only hope the 'Devs' read this thread and maybe release a patch as soon as possible with this feature. If it is not in the game, i hope some clever modder or person reading this forum can work out a way for some of us to alter the game speed ourselves.

Sol Invictus
17th May 2005, 14:58
Oststar, I agree, Villaret expressed my thoughts much more elegantly than I did. My post was not directed at anyone in particular, I'm sorry if you took it personally. It seems that this game, like so many others, is going to be a tugging match between the RTS and the TBS partisans. I guess the hybrid nature of the gameplay makes that inevitable. I am just so frustrated with game designers who ruin; imo; games with bad design decisions. I still think and desperately hope that IG can be a great game, but I am very worried. There are just too many red flags scattered about. If my worst fears are confirmed, hopefully the modding community can clean up the game for a better experience. Guess we will all know very shortly.

saddletank
17th May 2005, 17:46
TBS partisans.

What is TBS please? Your post raises an interesting point in that there is a huge cross-spectrum on this forum from grognards to clickfesters who have described some totally dubious tactics and I shudder to think what meeting them online would be like. But it does mean that Pyro have quite cleverly pitched their game to attract a wide audience. I wonder which section of that audience they will favour when it comes to issue any patches that may be necessary, or will they try and please all?

Svend Karlson
17th May 2005, 18:03
What is TBS please?

Turn-based strategy.

As one of the early posters in this thread calling for slower speeds & an active-pause, I'd like to clarify that I in no way hold gamers that prefer rapid action (such as in an RTS like Starcraft) in less regard. I would studiously avoid bandying about the term clickfest, as just because a game requires rapid action does not necessarily detract from the cerebral demands it makes.

Plainly & simply, I wouldn't enjoy a game which forced me to play at an uncomfortable pace. I tend to play TBS games versus humans & RTS games versus AI, which makes the lack of slower speed & active pause a critical issue.

The fantasy football game Chaos League provides a good example of optional control systems which did not interfere with gameplay I believe. The more glacial gamers could use the active-pause, whereas the humming-bird-esque types could go full RTS, with a 3rd setting in between.

Sol Invictus
17th May 2005, 19:51
I don't understand why a RTS fan would be offended by the word clickfest. To me it just means a fast-paced game mode. I consider myself a grognard and played boardgames against real people long before I owned a computer. I also greatly desire historical accuracy in my historicaly themed games, though I can let some things slide. I have even been known to enjoy a FPS on occasion and I certainly consider those clicky games. I just don't enjoy the clicky factor in what is billed as a historicly accurate Napoleonic game. I guess it's all just a matter of taste and I am keeping an open mind because I truely want to like and enjoy this game. The obvious solution is a speed slider and I can't understand any reason for not implementing one. The speed is certainly not the only or even my main concern, but we will know all very soon.

Webrider
18th May 2005, 00:17
Oststar, since your the appointed thread attack dog.

1. My opinion and everyones opinion is the only one that counts when buying a game,,, If I like YES "I" like it "I" buy it I'm paying the bills here. IF not I calculate at what point I would buy a game...

Notice I did not ask for a single feature I simply stated what I like and how I liked to play games, I did not say what you liked in a game was wrong. The features I like in a game determine what I pay for a game.

But there is no way to say that this is not a design based on the TW series which by the way started with the SHOGUN board game. The map and campaighn are exactly the same.... the new content was the 3d real time battles... but like you said ... most games are based on something else... for instance the TalonSoft games "I love" are knock offs of the Terrible Swift Sword game engine of SSP, an old board game maker.

Yes lack of skill led me to believe that I could put to line regiments protecting the artillery then the next game 2 line regiments and 4 squares and nothing not even my one cav counter charge could keep their 2 cav regiments off my guns. Now if I could slow the game down .. see whats happening and possibly think this bore some resemblence to a Napoleonic battle I might be interested in your opinion of my opinion. Guess I am somewhat I responded to your disection of my post. But I guess if you cant see this is a deriviative of the TW series there is no point in discussion after all. That point is obvious.
Butl like I said not a bad thing.

Oststar
18th May 2005, 00:44
I don't understand why a RTS fan would be offended by the word clickfest. To me it just means a fast-paced game mode. I consider myself a grognard and played boardgames against real people long before I owned a computer. I also greatly desire historical accuracy in my historicaly themed games, though I can let some things slide. I have even been known to enjoy a FPS on occasion and I certainly consider those clicky games. I just don't enjoy the clicky factor in what is billed as a historicly accurate Napoleonic game. I guess it's all just a matter of taste and I am keeping an open mind because I truely want to like and enjoy this game. The obvious solution is a speed slider and I can't understand any reason for not implementing one. The speed is certainly not the only or even my main concern, but we will know all very soon.

"Clickfest" is offensive because it implies that the "clickfester" is a mindless player of react-and-win games where higher clicks is better than strategy, it's the same as calling footballers pigskinheads...

I agree Imperial Glory should be slowed down, whether or not we'll see that I don't know, but my list of fixes runs thus:

-Lancers defeating squares
-Infantry getting bonus damage from charging squares
-Twenty Ship a side Battles
-Larger Land Battles
-Slower speed
-MP Campain (If possible)

Those are the major issues IMO, of those the first two are easy fixes. The third would require an interface change and campain coding, the forth another interface change, slower speed I have little idea and MP campain a LOT of coding.

Oststar
18th May 2005, 00:51
Oststar, since your the appointed thread attack dog.

Self appointed, thank you.


1. My opinion and everyones opinion is the only one that counts when buying a game,,, If I like YES "I" like it "I" buy it I'm paying the bills here. IF not I calculate at what point I would buy a game...

You cannot expect a game tailored to you though, at best you can expect a game that is exactly how you imagined and wanted for the original premise.


Notice I did not ask for a single feature I simply stated what I like and how I liked to play games, I did not say what you liked in a game was wrong. The features I like in a game determine what I pay for a game.

I'd look back through and check that statement but I haven't the time right now, so i'll take your word for it.


But there is no way to say that this is not a design based on the TW series which by the way started with the SHOGUN board game. The map and campaighn are exactly the same.... the new content was the 3d real time battles... but like you said ... most games are based on something else... for instance the TalonSoft games "I love" are knock offs of the Terrible Swift Sword game engine of SSP, an old board game maker.

There isn't really a different way of having the game, RoN used the RTS/TBS method, it was far from a TW knock off. I can think of only one other way of having a similar effect to the RTS/TBS hybrid, and it would tax the CPU to kingdom come.


Yes lack of skill led me to believe that I could put to line regiments protecting the artillery then the next game 2 line regiments and 4 squares and nothing not even my one cav counter charge could keep their 2 cav regiments off my guns. Now if I could slow the game down .. see whats happening and possibly think this bore some resemblence to a Napoleonic battle I might be interested in your opinion of my opinion. Guess I am somewhat I responded to your disection of my post. But I guess if you cant see this is a deriviative of the TW series there is no point in discussion after all. That point is obvious.
Butl like I said not a bad thing.

It is not a derivative, it is simply alike, the same as (if you believe in Evolution, yes I said believe as it is far from proven) the way an animal may develop independantly but be alike in many ways, it's simply the best way to do it. If TW had never been made IG would still have been made, RTS/TBS is the status quo method of Campains these days, and RTS2 is replacing the standard "Clickfest" Classic RTS.

Webrider
18th May 2005, 03:00
I know what I like about the TW series now, Had to go back and play a bit ...
In the real time portion of the game ...I like to pause .. give orders... then when the orders are being executed... look at the battles close up graphics...
which probably isn't how its intended to be played... I play WarHammer 40k Dawn of War the same way... looking close up at the animations...then give orders. Yes I agree all RTS followed the first one.. and I keep pointing out that is not a bad thing... just an observation....The first RTS is ??? .. was it warcraft 1? And Blizzard basically took the Warhammer Fantasy Art and game system and made a computer game out of it. BUT i do appreciate that they did that, they have certainly furthered the art of computer games, as I really do hope Imperial Glory furthers the art of this new hybrid gaming system. I read your tactics and figure they make great sense, I was mainly playing the demo to see how the game looked and felt, I really didn't expect it to be a shadow of the finished product....I would think a company would include all the features possible .. especially in a game like this ... TBS/RTS hybrid to make it more appealing to everyone... since it has a TBS element you would think it would make sense to appeal to that market in the RTS section of the game as well. To me it seems good business sense. I'm sure I will pick this game up tomorrow, and hope they add the features I like best....

Thecrisis5
18th May 2005, 03:05
My favorite thing about rts's is building an empire through contruction and good encomomies. Having a punishing navy as well. Rome did this well, and with 3-d naval battles IG should be great. :D

Oststar
18th May 2005, 04:53
I know what I like about the TW series now, Had to go back and play a bit ...
In the real time portion of the game ...I like to pause .. give orders... then when the orders are being executed... look at the battles close up graphics...
which probably isn't how its intended to be played... I play WarHammer 40k Dawn of War the same way... looking close up at the animations...then give orders.

I used to do a bit of that with Empire Earth, god that's an ugly game nowadays. Active pause is included now, which is a good thing IMHO, I won't use it, or at the least, will be quite lenient on it, but for those who play that way it makes all the difference.


Yes I agree all RTS followed the first one.. and I keep pointing out that is not a bad thing... just an observation....The first RTS is ??? .. was it warcraft 1? And Blizzard basically took the Warhammer Fantasy Art and game system and made a computer game out of it.

Hmm i'm not sure on the first RTS, but it was well before Warcraft 1.


BUT i do appreciate that they did that, they have certainly furthered the art of computer games, as I really do hope Imperial Glory furthers the art of this new hybrid gaming system.

Yes, the way I see it there are two types of RTS around these days; conventional "Classic RTS" and the newer "RTS2". The difference is that Classic RTS is the older style of town centres and click and point armies. This type is in decline with games such as Age of Empires 3 and Empire Earth 2, the only really new thing for AoE3 is superb graphics which so far just look like redone AoE1 graphics with some physics thrown in. EE2 claims to be a fantastic mulitplayer game with nothing really new, just improved controls and alliances. The RTS2 style is the RTS games that aren't like this, RTW and IG are good examples.


I read your tactics and figure they make great sense, I was mainly playing the demo to see how the game looked and felt, I really didn't expect it to be a shadow of the finished product....I would think a company would include all the features possible .. especially in a game like this ... TBS/RTS hybrid to make it more appealing to everyone... since it has a TBS element you would think it would make sense to appeal to that market in the RTS section of the game as well. To me it seems good business sense. I'm sure I will pick this game up tomorrow, and hope they add the features I like best....

I'm really hoping that official patches add the content i'm hoping for, if they don't however I can be sure that a mod will do it. If you've ever played the Gold Juno Sword mod for Close Combat Five then you'll know how sometimes a mod will totally replace the original (of course the fact that it totally overwrote the game files might be part of it :)) Like Forgotten Hope has done for many Battlefield 1942 players. I'm getting IG the second that I can, hopefully i'll see you on the battlefield :)

Svend Karlson
18th May 2005, 19:42
The first RTS is ??? .. was it warcraft 1?

Dune 2 is well known as a very early RTS, but I believe the accolade of the very first goes to Herzog Zwei (which I actually bought - puzzled by what type of game it was).

Herzog Zwei was released in 1989, and Warcraft: Orcs & Humans in 1994.

http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=3684

Edit: I should have known that Google would outperform my knowledge & memory: http://www.answers.com/topic/real-time-strategy

Lord Boris
18th May 2005, 20:03
I also thought the game seemed a bit on the fast side, if the movement could be 10% slower, it would be cool. I hope they patch in a speed slider bar as well. Otherwise it would be a great shame.

Khornish
18th May 2005, 21:23
I agree Imperial Glory should be slowed down, whether or not we'll see that I don't know, but my list of fixes runs thus:

-Lancers defeating squares
-Infantry getting bonus damage from charging squares
-Twenty Ship a side Battles
-Larger Land Battles
-Slower speed
-MP Campain (If possible)

Lancers should be given a chance to defeat squares, but not a guarantee. Lancers were most effective when the square couldn't fire a volley, for example in the rain. Well ordered volleys would still stand the lancers off until a chance happening gave them occassion for a charge.

Larger ship battles are a must. However, the control mechanisms need to be adjusted. Squadron commands for 3 ships at a time would be ideal. Formations (line ahead, line abreast, etc) would be great.

Larger land battles should be up to the player. We should be able to toggle the maximum size of units it a battle that are allowed, based on our system specs. The host of an MP game thus would determine all the initial choices, which his opponent and ally would be informed of on the pre-game screen.

MP campaign would mean that I'd buy 2 or 3 copies of this game for my home network. As it is, i'm getting a free copy

Lord Boris
18th May 2005, 21:28
Hopefully Eidos will continue to invest in Pyros efforts. IG is a very good game nonetheless, but it should be taken to its full potential. Some good points have been raised on this thread that the devs should look into.

A multiplayer campaign would be excellent as well, and would be a good way to get one over on Rome Total War.

(type name here)
18th May 2005, 21:35
I guess it would be kind of hard to implement, i mean what happens if one guy desides to take a crap and make everyone wait an hour for his turn to finish? (yeah i know it's a little extreme but you know what i mean)

Lord Boris
18th May 2005, 21:41
Hehe, thats true and could be annoying. But hopefully over time an online community would develop and you meet reliable people who wont let you down in online games. (Worst case scenario - even worse than people taking a crap is people who just log out of a game once the going gets tough without even saying a word).

Also, it would be good for playing with home networks or over the internet against real life friends who may live locally as most of us dont own 3 to 4 PC's that are networked together. I wish i did though :)

(type name here)
18th May 2005, 21:49
This is every gamers dream...

Oststar
18th May 2005, 23:27
This is every gamers dream...

*dreams* I'd love that, especially against those American anti-strategists in my clan :P Hopefully we'll see it patched, or pyros will do what no company has ever done before: offically support the modders. If pyros is willing to, there will be modders out there who will happily give pyros an MP campain... just give them the official recognition and support.

Webrider
20th May 2005, 00:36
Dune 2 is well known as a very early RTS, but I believe the accolade of the very first goes to Herzog Zwei

I have never heard of Herzog Zwei.... the first Dune2 may have been the first RTS I remember.. that was a good game.

Where can you get the mod for close combat 5 Sword Gold Juno? I will go search for that.

Oststar
20th May 2005, 00:45
Where can you get the mod for close combat 5 Sword Gold Juno? I will go search for that.

www.closecombat.org, there are some really great mods on the site.
http://www.closecombat.org/CSO/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewsdownload&sid=66

that's the GJS area, you'll need the 35MB file and then the 300MB something maps pack. Well worth it though, well worth it.

OGGleep
20th May 2005, 17:00
Dune 2 is well known as a very early RTS, but I believe the accolade of the very first goes to Herzog Zwei (which I actually bought - puzzled by what type of game it was).

Herzog Zwei was released in 1989, and Warcraft: Orcs & Humans in 1994.



I had Ancient Art of War on the Mac, way back when. Man I loved that game. Ancient Art of War at Sea was also awesome. Herzog Zwei is a classic, if you see it used anywhere, snap it up. Its worth getting a genisis just for that game.

But on to the topic of speed. Does anyone else want the option to compress time? The time limit is 30 minutes of real time if I'm not mistaken. The limited maps I have played on during the campaign all had me truckin a long way just to make contact with the enemy. If I am confident he's not going to be moving, I tell my army to move 3x rifle distance away from the enemy and go smoke. IMHO that needs to be addressed.

wolfetone
27th May 2005, 19:47
In all this debate I think a point is being missed. The AI doesn't face the same constraints most of us do (excluding of course the exceptionally gifted master clickers out there).. it doesn't have to scroll and click to various points of the battlefield and then back and forth and this unit here and that unit there like the regular player must. So when a hole develops in a line because a unit decides to shift 90% the computer player automatically sees it and can instantly react while we are on the other side of the battlefield.

It's definately something that needs to be addressed whether you agree with a slider/pause feature or not. Also, I don't get why some people are so opposed to the idea of such a feature. IF you don't want to use it, DON'T. And you can still have your arcade still video game with a historical backdrop.

:)

GenMoore
27th May 2005, 19:54
Well i find in this type of game that numbering helps you against the AI.

Haveing now played a few games in SP an MP, I can see the differance.

If you group some units together and number them, then you can relate quicker to the situation.
Covering the Arty is important in SP with this game.
The AI cav make a bee line for the arty once it opens fire.

So I keep a company of Inf and cav nearby to save it from attack. ;)

wolfetone
27th May 2005, 20:02
I do know how to "number" the troops. That means very little though (at least to me) when the enemy can automatically readjust his lines and you can't without a lot of work. Sure, you can take a numbered set of troops and "move" them somewhere else but that doesn't take into account the changes in enemy positions. This is mainly a factor in larger battles. If you have a few units in a battle.... that point would be more practical. Also, when I have to micro-manage unit actions (and keep my artillery from murdering my own men or keep my cavaly from charging off to certain destruction (without orders) while at the same time switching to the other side of the battlefield it takes away (for me) the enjoyment of actually watching the battle (or seeing the progress of my strategy ..or lack thereof, in action.)

GenMoore
27th May 2005, 20:07
Thats the game, you are the human eliment. the AI is not so intelligent as you, so you have to play as It was at the time, and you will win.

Out think the AI.
Its harder with humans playing humans, they look for cheats, the AI is set allready. :D

wolfetone
27th May 2005, 20:15
What? The computer doesn't have the impediment of having to take time and think..it just reacts instantaneously. It doesn't have to take time to scroll to another side of the battlefield and back while humans do. This reflects (on the computer's part) what unit commanders and a field command would be doing (in many cases at the same time) while we can't do the same. So that's not very realistic or fun (after a while). Sure, if all you want to do is click, click, click... then no problem. If it ticks you off that an entire wing has disappeared because the computer can see the entire battlefield at the same time and react instantaneosly.. then you're more of the mond that fixes to code need to be made. Has absolutely nothing to do with how smart (or not) you are... It has to do with limitations in the game (that can be addressed). Of course, I speak as one of the few non -omnipotent beings wandering around in the forum.

Still love the game though!

GenMoore
27th May 2005, 20:30
You have to understand the way things were at this time, how units worked,tireing, fatique, the type of weapons used. all this comes into the equasion.

The AI reacts as I see it in the right way for the period, so you have to, too. :D

I have never seen so sofisticated AI in a game other than Ost Front/Blitzkrieg.

:D

wolfetone
27th May 2005, 20:40
I think I do understand it well enough to know that we're not debating historical accuracy (because the computer's abilities would more closely resemble accuracy than the human players enjoy now (in the sense that the computer can make the decisions that an overall commander could make during the cuorse of a battle in conjunction with brigade/unit commanders..) we're arguing game mechanics.

Webrider
28th May 2005, 05:37
Ok .. I bought the damn game.... played it extensivly for a week and come to the same conclusion I had previously..... get a pause to give orders....speed slider... make it selectable for multiplayer... mandatory for single player.. you dont have to use it ;) ....

And for SURE>..... put a red or white boarder around the damn navy battles so you know when you are leaving the battle.

Is there a way when you fight navy battles to put individual ships on automatic and only control one ship?

It has taken me all week to get to the 3rd era.. I have done 3 techs in the 3rd level... and still have to play most land and major sea battles in auto resolve mode because when I fight a sea battle I cant control all the ships and keep them on the map.... in land battles I can not get 12 to 16 units to be effective without a pause and speed slider. So I have to let the computer resolve the bigger battles.

I do like the strategy part of the game very well. We are just discussing what I need to like the combat portion of the game .. errr or even use it. But I have zoomed in on a combat scene and it looked good....now if I could just play that part of the game. I think I am winning as France on medium AI level but I figure I'm half way through a game.

Notice I have been playing not griping.... now I took time to check for a patch then post my thoughts after buying the game and playing for a week.
I guess I am showing some measure of trust in PYRO to add the features I want since they now have my money. This could be a really good game with.

Pause to give orders
speed slider
boarder around naval battles
pause and speed slider in naval battles as well
zones of control for units
moral
perhaps even an on map leader... not assoiated with a unit as in TW series

Element-UK
28th May 2005, 10:11
Imo, the speed is fine. Battles in that period and earlier always relied on having a good position to withstand the speed of attack and repel it with mass fire, usually having just time for one musket volley if there running at you. Exception being Rifle units and the Artillery having the correct ranges and the ability to auto-switch to grapeshot at around 350 or so yards according to caliber. Just like in Ancient warfare, the Commander has given the set up orders and issues commands to the unit colonels/etc and then relies on their individual prowess to bring it all together to follow a larger plan. Due to the communication being done by Musical instruments like battle horns etc, the reaction or ability to react to a command from above once battle started was down to the unit commanders not the General. If it was slower and the game still never had a battle screen speed slider-bar, you could sit there for 10 mins just waiting for the enemy.

Gelatinous Cube
28th May 2005, 10:29
Ok .. I bought the damn game.... played it extensivly for a week and come to the same conclusion I had previously..... get a pause to give orders....speed slider... make it selectable for multiplayer... mandatory for single player.. you dont have to use it ;) ....

And for SURE>..... put a red or white boarder around the damn navy battles so you know when you are leaving the battle.

Is there a way when you fight navy battles to put individual ships on automatic and only control one ship?

It has taken me all week to get to the 3rd era.. I have done 3 techs in the 3rd level... and still have to play most land and major sea battles in auto resolve mode because when I fight a sea battle I cant control all the ships and keep them on the map.... in land battles I can not get 12 to 16 units to be effective without a pause and speed slider. So I have to let the computer resolve the bigger battles.

I do like the strategy part of the game very well. We are just discussing what I need to like the combat portion of the game .. errr or even use it. But I have zoomed in on a combat scene and it looked good....now if I could just play that part of the game. I think I am winning as France on medium AI level but I figure I'm half way through a game.

Notice I have been playing not griping.... now I took time to check for a patch then post my thoughts after buying the game and playing for a week.
I guess I am showing some measure of trust in PYRO to add the features I want since they now have my money. This could be a really good game with.

Pause to give orders
speed slider
boarder around naval battles
pause and speed slider in naval battles as well
zones of control for units
moral
perhaps even an on map leader... not assoiated with a unit as in TW series

All week to get to the third era? You either fight a lot of wars, or don't have that much free time. ;)

I agree about the Pause & Command. Speed Slider would be nice, but not necesarry. I actually don't agree about morale. The enemy will retreat when they think they're losing, and you have the option to persue them and capture people and whatnot afterwards; this works just fine. A border around naval battles would be nice as well. One thing i've found that makes them easier is to set them on auto-fire, and just constantly switch from ship to ship to keep them moving. It also helps to have one or two of your ships board enemy ships, to simplify the battle.

Queeg
28th May 2005, 18:00
Having played a few more battles, I'm getting used to the movement speed. So maybe that isn't as much of an issue.

But I still think combat resolution is too fast. I find that units get wiped out in just three or four volleys and melee combat is over before I have time to react. Perhaps weapons are more lethal than they should be and tweaking the effectiveness of the weapons would slow things down a bit.

I don't think the battles need to be like in Civil War - Bull Run, where units stand and volley at each other for 20 minutes. But neither should one unit destroy another in 20 seconds. Just slow things down a bit so that the player can identify units that are in trouble and provide support.