PDA

View Full Version : Ship Battles - Tactics, Etc.



Hannibal-Sun
19th May 2005, 04:29
People!

I can not believe that people are talking about how fine the game is and plays but have not bothered to jump into a ship battle which looks sick from the trailers.

Anyone have any ideas on that?

Also, will we be able to at least play 3 v 3 versus boring 2 v 2s?

Please fill up this thread.

saddletank
19th May 2005, 08:00
No, 2 v 2 only. And yes the naval battles look to be more silly than the land battles, tactics and realism wise.

sick
19th May 2005, 08:14
They're actually pretty fun, and I can know it. :)

Oststar
19th May 2005, 10:27
They're actually pretty fun, and I can know it. :)

Big difference between fun and realism...

ReCoiL
19th May 2005, 11:07
But whats the point of having realism if it aint fun.... thats the reason i play games because they keep me ENTERTAINED for hours. Not just cause they are realistic...

saddletank
19th May 2005, 12:11
Who said realism wasn't fun? And we've had the clickfesters saying this before, it's an empty argument. The most realistic games ARE the most fun - because you are engaged in a completely believeable situation and your ships/units behave realistically and so does the enemy.

rastak
19th May 2005, 12:39
Who said realism wasn't fun? And we've had the clickfesters saying this before, it's an empty argument. The most realistic games ARE the most fun - because you are engaged in a completely believeable situation and your ships/units behave realistically and so does the enemy.

Realism is fun to a point. It's a balance. Would it be fun to have the game run real time? Have it take 4 or 5 years to fight the war? Nope.

While a certain amount of realism is necessary for me to have fun, I understand other people may have less or more tolerance for what they consider unrealistic.

Anyway, I can't wait to play. I got the demo to work last night using the ATI 5.5 drivers and had a GREAT time. I'll need to figure out how to gaurd my big guns against cavalry charges though.........

Hope people can post some impressions soon!

sniggles
19th May 2005, 14:44
Hi Rastak,

Been re-playing the Demo for ages now.

I have found the best way to beat both levels is to take out there cavalry with yours as quick as possible. You can intercept there charge if need be with your own charge. Obviously try to engage them closer to your infantry for added suport.

Just my opinion - the cavalry are virtually unstoppable once they get close to your guns and can destroy them in a matter of seconds. Any of your cavalry left can be used to circle around to the side or rear of the enemy and take out there artillery.

I was hoping the game might arrive today - bit of a long shot since it was only posted by Play.com yesterday.

Hopefully it should arrive tomorrow (the official release day) and if i can tear myself away i will post my initial impressions on this forum.

Oststar
19th May 2005, 23:02
Realism is fun to a point. It's a balance. Would it be fun to have the game run real time? Have it take 4 or 5 years to fight the war? Nope.

Realism in game terms doesn't mean striving for 100% accuracy to the point of IG consisting of a musket, uniform and instructions on where to meet to re-enact the Napoleonic conflicts. It means removing aracadish features as much as possible. Forgotten Hope, a mod for an FPS, is described as realistic, but players rave about the fun they have. Red Orchestra is another realism mod, much more realistic, but many players left because of the extreme difficulty.


While a certain amount of realism is necessary for me to have fun, I understand other people may have less or more tolerance for what they consider unrealistic.

Twelve ships constituting a whole battle and infantry squares repelling charges are where I draw the line. Both are easily fixed. As is the smaller battle size: my 1.1ghz AMD Athlon can run 4000 units on screen with only minimal lagging, imagine a 4.0ghz.


I can't wait to play. I got the demo to work last night using the ATI 5.5 drivers and had a GREAT time. I'll need to figure out how to gaurd my big guns against cavalry charges though.........

"Big guns"... i'll let that statement stand on it's own two feet.

eastcoasthandle
19th May 2005, 23:47
You know, I wonder if these cry babies are the same people from R:TW who also complained that the game wasn't "real enough", wasn't "realistic" etc.

One thing I learned, you can't please miserable people.

The game is "fun" as stated earlier. Why is it so important that someone else knows how miserable you truly are? Who cares what you think, if you don't like the game find something you do like. Stop letting people know how miserable you truly are!!!

The difference between intelligence and stupidity:

Intelligence: If you don't like the game you won't buy it. You've played the demo and decided it's not of your taste.

Stupidity: Didn't like the concept, didn't like the demo and still purchased the game. Now they complain that it's a let down.

Oststar
20th May 2005, 00:42
You know, I wonder if these cry babies are the same people from R:TW who also complained that the game wasn't "real enough", wasn't "realistic" etc.

Two posts ina nd you made an ass of yourself by not learning things before speaking your mind. Imperial Glory has easy potential to fix a few minor unrealistic issues: I for one want to see them fixed. I dont want Standard Bearers or other fancy things, they'd be nice, but not important. I want practical features like 20v20 ship battles.


One thing I learned, you can't please miserable people.

I for one am not a miserable person, far from it.


The game is "fun" as stated earlier. Why is it so important that someone else knows how miserable you truly are? Who cares what you think, if you don't like the game find something you do like. Stop letting people know how miserable you truly are!!!

Now some spout off of nonsense... and to the little point presented: Imperial Glory was supposed to be realistic. It is, but a few features are lacking, primarily: Larger sea and land battles, Lancers need to be more effective aainst squares, Infantry should have a bonus attack against squares because the free to move soldiers could reach further and massacre the locked in squares. And also horse artillery needs correcting. That's all I really want to see, Lancers with higher effectiveness (Less armour, more attack), Infantry extra-effective vs squares, larger battles. I'm not a realism nut, in fact I will play this game even if those features aren't added, I just feel that Pyros should include them: mindless players such as yourself won't even notice, to others it will make a world of difference.


The difference between intelligence and stupidity:

Intelligence: If you don't like the game you won't buy it. You've played the demo and decided it's not of your taste.

Stupidity: Didn't like the concept, didn't like the demo and still purchased the game. Now they complain that it's a let down.

That's the difference regarding the game. In the overall difference we know where you stand...

I loved the demo and loved the concept. But I give it 80%, because of the minor issues like Lancers, Squares, Battle size. Battle size was a strange idea because my 1.1ghz can handle 3500 units in a snap, I can imagine that a 4.0 could handle much more. Ships it was even stranger, apparently we'd have trouble controling more than six ships. In any case you need to think first, ask questions and speak later.

sniggles
20th May 2005, 01:17
WOW Oststar - mental note to myself not to get on your bad side!

Let's calm things down now.

You have both had your say without too much 'flaming' (well - maybe a little toasting) and time to move on.

I am not nosing in but i have instant e-mail notification of any thread i partake in.

I should have the game in 7 hours - i hope. It is now 2.15 a.m (UK) and i have to force myself to sleep in a moment. My post usually arrives around 9.

Let's hope the talented modding community will dive in and release many different mods to tailor the game individually for each of us.

This is beyond my abilities as i have a hard enough time fitting a simple DVD drive.

LiQuiD_PaRaDoX
20th May 2005, 04:09
Too bad you can't use the navy to shell nearby land forces / armies.

Oststar
20th May 2005, 04:37
IRT Sniggles

When i'm happy i'm happy, when i'm in a fight i'm exhilarated.

Gelatinous Cube
20th May 2005, 04:56
Now, personally, I'm glad the ship battles aren't bigger. The way they play out is downright frantic. If they had a better way of representing the battles, perhaps it would be feasible to make them larger.

saddletank
20th May 2005, 08:29
Hold on a moment, where did this idea that lancers are better against squares come from? The incidences from history where lancers penetrated squares more than other cavalry types are miniscule, in fact I don't think there is any justification in adding a lancer v square bonus.

Now removing lancers from the British unit list would be a sensible move.

Khornish
20th May 2005, 12:45
Hold on a moment, where did this idea that lancers are better against squares come from? The incidences from history where lancers penetrated squares more than other cavalry types are miniscule, in fact I don't think there is any justification in adding a lancer v square bonus.

Under certain circumstances, lancers would perform better (all else being equal) in weakening a square to the point where it would break. I think those circumstaces, although they can be modeled within the game, also don't warrant any real change. IG doesn't really use time as a component of the battlefield equation other than as comparison for unit's movement speeds (too fast). With so many timed elements being missing, giving lancers an advantage wouldn't be useful other than to make them the battle cavalry of choice for the player.



Now removing lancers from the British unit list would be a sensible move.

Absolutely!

Oststar
20th May 2005, 14:03
Now removing lancers from the British unit list would be a sensible move.

Napoleonic era newbie... why so? The British kept Lancers in the line longer than any other nation, why not have them?

Silent_Scope
20th May 2005, 18:54
lancers are effective cavalry against all units from my experience. I find a charge on the flank absolutly slaughters the men you attack.

saddletank
21st May 2005, 00:24
Napoleonic era newbie... why so? The British kept Lancers in the line longer than any other nation, why not have them?

Because the British did not have lancers in the Napoleonic wars.

saddletank
21st May 2005, 00:27
lancers are effective cavalry against all units from my experience. I find a charge on the flank absolutly slaughters the men you attack.

In the game (ptoo..ptoo) yes, in history, no. The lance had a modest bonus in the initial charge to contact, after a minute or so the usefulness of the sword outweighed any initial advantage the lancer gained.

eastcoasthandle
21st May 2005, 12:51
Two posts ina nd you made an ass of yourself by not learning things before speaking your mind. Imperial Glory has easy potential to fix a few minor unrealistic issues: I for one want to see them fixed. I dont want Standard Bearers or other fancy things, they'd be nice, but not important. I want practical features like 20v20 ship battles.

-Lack of intelligence has lead you here to this forum instead of an email to those who produced the game. It's apparent you are seeking sympathy instead of resolution.

I for one am not a miserable person, far from it.

-By far you are a miserable trolling on this board yapping about how unsatisfied you are about the game. If you don't have anything subjective to say or the ability to offer a solution keep your opinions to yourself.

Now some spout off of nonsense... and to the little point presented: Imperial Glory was supposed to be realistic. It is, but a few features are lacking, primarily: Larger sea and land battles, Lancers need to be more effective aainst squares, Infantry should have a bonus attack against squares because the free to move soldiers could reach further and massacre the locked in squares. And also horse artillery needs correcting. That's all I really want to see, Lancers with higher effectiveness (Less armour, more attack), Infantry extra-effective vs squares, larger battles. I'm not a realism nut, in fact I will play this game even if those features aren't added, I just feel that Pyros should include them: mindless players such as yourself won't even notice, to others it will make a world of difference.

-Instead of taking the opportunity to get involved of a modding community or email those who produced this game you spout of here in the forum. Yes, that's a very intelligent thing to do. Now what have you acchieved by this action? Has it been resolved or does it only satisfy your feelings? Instead of your posting "your feelings" on the correct thread "Patches/Suggestions" you post in the wrong thread "Ship Battles-Tactics, Etc". Your feelings don't offer anything remote to tatics in ship battles nor was it an intelligent thing to do. Again, instead of you posting your "feelings" to the correct thread you are here.

That's the difference regarding the game. In the overall difference we know where you stand...

I loved the demo and loved the concept. But I give it 80%, because of the minor issues like Lancers, Squares, Battle size. Battle size was a strange idea because my 1.1ghz can handle 3500 units in a snap, I can imagine that a 4.0 could handle much more. Ships it was even stranger, apparently we'd have trouble controling more than six ships. In any case you need to think first, ask questions and speak later.

-I'm sorry, I do not recognize your "review " of the game nor did anyone ask for it. This by all means is very pompous and arrogant.

rastak
21st May 2005, 13:10
-I'm sorry, I do not recognize your "review " of the game nor did anyone ask for it. This by all means is very pompous and arrogant.

You noticed that too, eh?

Isgrim
21st May 2005, 15:21
am i the only one who finds controlling 12 ships at the same time somewhat frustrating? atleast implement a give orders while paused in the naval battles.

ptan54
21st May 2005, 15:36
What is the point of having a forum if it isn't to critique and give ideas for new patches? Using the logic of "one should not complain, just stop playing the game", a forum would be nothing more than a gathering of fanboys typing reams of praise. Patches are released for a reason - to improve the game and sales of the game. Without consumer demand for change, there is no incentive to release new patches. The board is where consumers can ask for changes to be made to the game, and as such, criticism in a civil manner (which that "review" was) is completely justified.

I, for one, believe that true arrogance lies in muzzling another consumer's right to complain and telling him to bugger off for airing his opinions.