PDA

View Full Version : Game Speed and Pause



Schwartzscooter
19th May 2005, 19:31
Based on the previous posts, now that the game is out, I assume the game speed can not be adjusted and pause will not allow you to give orders.

Thanks for the response.

Silent_Scope
19th May 2005, 19:40
well it adds more depth to the games i think, more for hands on commanders.

Webrider
20th May 2005, 00:24
Hmmm less features = more depth .. nice stretch.

spoom
20th May 2005, 00:34
I want to be able to play a battle at "near lifelike " speed.
At Waterloo I missed 2/3 of my Infantry being mowed down by
english cav in the 10 seconds I took to adjust artillery.

Queeg
20th May 2005, 04:45
In my experience, designers often use gamespeed to camouflage poor design. If the battles happen fast enough, you don't have time to notice the weaknesses in the AI. I hope that isn't the case with IG.

I do agree that the battles move too quickly. Some of it may be that I'm still getting used to the controls. I know that few gamers want every battle to last hours of real time, like a true Napoleonic battle. But the pacing should allow the player a reasonable opportunity to assess developments and adjust tactics. The jury is still out on IG in this regard.

Webrider
20th May 2005, 16:12
How can you give orders to 3 regiments that need to square in time that are being charged by cav? The computer can do it just fine. Can you put each regiment on command control by their individual regiment commanders? Less control is not better. I really want to buy this game today, money is not the issue .... buying it and hoping they will add the features I want later is the issue since it seams it did not ship in that form. I like the concept of the turn based campaighn and want as much of the TBS element to be present in the RTS portion of the game...the TW series acomplished that with speed slider and pause and give orders ... which is brilliantly acceptable.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 16:23
How can you give orders to 3 regiments that need to square in time that are being charged by cav? The computer can do it just fine. Can you put each regiment on command control by their individual regiment commanders? Less control is not better. I really want to buy this game today, money is not the issue .... buying it and hoping they will add the features I want later is the issue since it seams it did not ship in that form. I like the concept of the turn based campaighn and want as much of the TBS element to be present in the RTS portion of the game...the TW series acomplished that with speed slider and pause and give orders ... which is brilliantly acceptable.

Its a marmite situation. You either love it, or loathe it. We've gone for the `no pause command` flavour. Some love, some loathe, we cannot please all parties (well we could by having it as an selectable option - but dev team liked the no pause command so didnt)

OGGleep
20th May 2005, 16:42
well we could by having it as an selectable option - but dev team liked the no pause command so didnt

Too bad the Dev's don't have to buy the game.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 16:45
Too bad the Dev's don't have to buy the game.

They do play it tho..

spoom
20th May 2005, 16:52
The no pause route would be fine if the game play was "real time" speed.
I and literally dozens of my friends/clan mates have looked for this game to come out hoping to finally have a good "real time" not "speedy Gonzales time"
Napoleonic era battle game. I was the 1st and at this point only person to
buy this game. Within 1 hour of when I tried to fight Waterloo I put out the "junk" game warning. Sorry if this bothers some but I would have spent
twice the money on a decent Napoleonic era game. This is unplayable to someone who wants to re-fight historical or semi-historical battles. I dont want to "pause to give orders" I just loathe swinging over to adjust Artillery
and find that 15-30 seconds later ALL of my Infantry have been "slaughtered to a man" by 1calvary unit. Were there any Wargamers Involved with the
"Dev team"? Pretty obviously not.
Sorry about the Rant but I just
spent 43$ on a piece of crap in its current form.
MAKE IT PLAYABLE PLEASE

pawnsacrifice
20th May 2005, 16:57
So no pause and issue commands or game speed slider. Well that's too bad I was really looking forward to this game. Looks like another great concept for a game down the tubes beacuse of faulty designing. This reminds me of WWII. The Russian T-34 battle tank was far superior to anything the Germans had in 1941. So during the winter '41-'42 the German Army sent experts around to collect data on what worked in tanks and what needed to be changed. They proposed a copy of the T-34's basic design and the addition of more components to fit the Germans needs. The German tank designers refused because pride prevented them from copying the best tools of the enemy. We all know how that turned out for the Germans. I hope the Eidos refusal to make the game pause/command option available doesn't turn into a great folly. I guess you could just ignore the crappy part of the game and just auto-resolve the battles. Seems like a waste of space for the game though, maybe could have used that space to expand on the management section. To spend all of that time working on the battles just to make them clickfests seems like a bad allocation of time and resources. Just my opinion so no flaming please.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 16:58
So no pause and issue commands or game speed slider. Well that's too bad I was really looking forward to this game. Looks like another great concept for a game down the tubes beacuse of faulty designing. This reminds me of WWII. The Russian T-34 battle tank was far superior to anything the Germans had in 1941. So during the winter '41-'42 the German Army sent experts around to collect data on what worked in tanks and what needed to be changed. They proposed a copy of the T-34's basic design and the addition of more components to fit the Germans needs. The German tank designers refused because pride prevented them from copying the best tools of the enemy. We all know how that turned out for the Germans. I hope the Eidos refusal to make the game pause/command option available doesn't turn into a great folly. I guess you could just ignore the crappy part of the game and just auto-resolve the battles. Seems like a waste of space for the game though, maybe could have used that space to expand on the management section. To spend all of that time working on the battles just to make them clickfests seems like a bad allocation of time and resources. Just my opinion so no flaming please.

It wasnt our refusal to make the option available, it was Pyro's game design. We have mentioned to them about the pause command option etc.

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 17:01
It wasnt our refusal to make the option available, it was Pyro's game design. We have mentioned to them about the pause command option etc.
Could you harass them for us please? even if its merely a selectable option for both the speed and pause commands

pawnsacrifice
20th May 2005, 17:02
thx for reply. Sorry thought it was Eidos. Hope the developers add the option later in a patch, might make the game buyable. Just have to be patient and see.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 17:03
thx for reply. Sorry thought it was Eidos. Hope the developers add the option later in a patch, might make the game buyable. Just have to be patient and see.

Its Pyro's game so they have final say on what goes into the game or not, however we will be expressing the consumers feedback to them and see what we can do.

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 17:09
Its Pyro's game so they have final say on what goes into the game or not, however we will be expressing the consumers feedback to them and see what we can do.
Finally, a publisher that gives a crap about the people who are filling their retirement funds. Keep it up and youll have a fnatical supporter out of me :)

spoom
20th May 2005, 17:10
Without the Battles being the proper speed and playability I have
no use for the Economic/Diplomatic portion of the game.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 17:11
Finally, a publisher that gives a crap about the people who are filling their retirement funds. Keep it up and youll have a fnatical supporter out of me :)

Its cos you filling it that i give a `crap` as you put it.. ironic eh? ;)

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 17:16
Its cos you filling it that i give a `crap` as you put it.. ironic eh? ;)
Pah I dont care if your using it to support a string of iligitimate kids and a drinking habbit, were both happy so I'll happily add mine to the cash pot

spoom
20th May 2005, 17:35
As game plays now only computer commanders can
make decisions/give orders in a timely fashion.
By the time a human makes a decision to give orders
the time to give them or the unit to give them to is passed(or passed on)

Grifman
21st May 2005, 01:01
Its a marmite situation. You either love it, or loathe it. We've gone for the `no pause command` flavour. Some love, some loathe, we cannot please all parties (well we could by having it as an selectable option - but dev team liked the no pause command so didnt)

How dumb. What harm would there be putting it in as an option? As you readily admit, it pleases EVERYONE. I played the demo and it was unplayable - there was no way to adjust your artillery fire, move your infantry into squares when cavalry charged, and order your own troops to charge on the other flank at the same time. The TW series has had this from the beginning. I know any number of people who've told me that they won't purchase a RTS game - and some specifically THIS game - with pause and order. I wish developers would learn.

Wolfgrin
21st May 2005, 01:31
As a historical gamer, I should be right in the middle of this game's target demographic. I love all the Total War games and I enjoy many not-so-realistic RTSs, specifically Rise of Nations and Dawn of War. Eidos sounds like they're making the same mistake with IG that they did with Praetorians, which is marketing to a historical audience and delivering a 14-year old's toy game. I apologize for pre-judging here, but after reading the posts in this and other forums, I'm appalled at what I've seen. No speed slider? No pause and command? No morale? In one of the other posts on this forum, someone put IG in the Warcraft III category. Ugh!

From what I've seen from the screenshots and features, it sounds as if you, the developers, put a lot of loving detail into this game. It deserves its audience. However, I for one, will not be buying the game until things like speed, pause and morale are addressed.

Here's hoping, because there is so much potential.

Stereophobia
21st May 2005, 01:34
As a historical gamer, I should be right in the middle of this game's target demographic. I love all the Total War games and I enjoy many not-so-realistic RTSs, specifically Rise of Nations and Dawn of War. Eidos sounds like they're making the same mistake with IG that they did with Praetorians, which is marketing to a historical audience and delivering a 14-year old's toy game. I apologize for pre-judging here, but after reading the posts in this and other forums, I'm appalled at what I've seen. No speed slider? No pause and command? No morale? In one of the other posts on this forum, someone put IG in the Warcraft III category. Ugh!

From what I've seen from the screenshots and features, it sounds as if you, the developers, put a lot of loving detail into this game. It deserves its audience. However, I for one, will not be buying the game until things like speed, pause and morale are addressed.

Here's hoping, because there is so much potential.
You might want to add those points to the patch thread, many voices calling for the same thing should get some things heard

WhiteSkull
21st May 2005, 01:57
people could wait for the mods, one that removes the battle timer cuts kill speed and reduces movement for all units just like RTW moders did :)

Psychonaut
21st May 2005, 02:07
@jaycw2309, you stated that you’ve gone for the `no pause command` flavor , therefore you could not please all parties. I don’t understand the logic behind that decision, it does not make sense to me.
If you would have added the Pause/command you would not be displeasing anyone, as the people who do not like it simply would not use it and both parties would have been happy, yet by not implementing the Pause/command you have shut out a good amount of people from buying your game and the only people you are making happy are the “anti Pause/command crowd”, to me that is not good business practice, you want to sell as many units as possible right.
This is a big issue with RTS games, in every forum where a game does not have Pause/Command there is a discussion on this issue, sometimes heated (one Party is left out and unsatisfied). Yet interestingly in the games that do have Pause/ Command there are no such debates in the forums (all parties are satisfied), so you see my point.
People really only want this feature for single player not multiplayer.
I am not trying to be insulting especially to you, as you seem to be very helpful and sympathetic to the concerns of your customers. I am only trying to keep this debate alive so that a change will be made in the form of a patch as to me it seems to be the only really big “gamebreaking” issue that is missing , that’s all.

Sol Invictus
21st May 2005, 04:14
What a horrible shame. I hope the modders or a patch can adjust some things or I can't see myself burning any money for this game. I will wait and follow the game, I got time.

Webrider
21st May 2005, 06:44
#7 Yesterday, 04:23 PM
jaycw2309
Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London
Posts: 601



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webrider
How can you give orders to 3 regiments that need to square in time that are being charged by cav? The computer can do it just fine. Can you put each regiment on command control by their individual regiment commanders? Less control is not better. I really want to buy this game today, money is not the issue .... buying it and hoping they will add the features I want later is the issue since it seams it did not ship in that form. I like the concept of the turn based campaighn and want as much of the TBS element to be present in the RTS portion of the game...the TW series acomplished that with speed slider and pause and give orders ... which is brilliantly acceptable.


jaycw2309
Super Moderator
Its a marmite situation. You either love it, or loathe it. We've gone for the `no pause command` flavour. Some love, some loathe, we cannot please all parties (well we could by having it as an selectable option - but dev team liked the no pause command so didnt)

Webrider
Loathe it would be my answer in this case.... You can please me when the price point is 19.99 ....or they patch it in.... I have too many games, to play one that will just piss me off. I played the demo. Since I don't care about multiplayer... and hence don't care if the game is current or not ... I can wait for my price point or a patch.... makes me little difference.

But they could please everyone in this case, if they would get off their lazzy ***** and make it selectable for the multiplayer crowd who doesn't like to pause to give orders, or speed slider and pause to give orders. I can respect that people like to play that way. But I don't, so I loath it if it forced on me.
Guess it's not forced on my I don't have to buy the game, I will concede that point. If they are simply trying to appeal the hard core (no pause high speed) RTS crowd why have a TBS stratgey game? If they needed to get the game on the market to generate cash flow... now that I can understand and even support. But their unwillingness to appeal to as many gamers as possible is very bold or very stupid. Guess their sales and the gamers ....not the professional reviewers... will tell. Or if they end up adding the features I want.
Speed Slider... Pause to give orders... and even Moral.

Gelatinous Cube
21st May 2005, 08:04
I agree that it seems quite lazy that they are using the "Love it or hate it" argument. Let's take a look at who loves it:

Love: People who almost exclusively play multiplayer and perhaps have never spelled out the words "Too", "Are", or "You" in their lives.

Hate: The intelligent gamers who this genre SHOULD APPEAL TO.

It saddens me that, in the case of RTW, many are boycotting future products (and, if you'll read the petition, it's at a very high number now) until some kind of intelligent support is given. I have a little more faith in Pyro.. but time will tell. You can't go for the amazing and in-depth campaign map that you've achieved, and then have super-fast-paced frantic battles with no pause & command, and then talk about pleasing both parties! Of course it's love or hate: You've just alienated the fast-paced Bnet kiddies with your campaign map, and the wargamers with the battles!

I'll likely buy it anyhow, despite this rant, and since i've never had experience with Pyro Studios before. Time will tell whether or not I see fit to buy future Pyro products.

*edit*

I don't want to come off too harsh here, as I liked the demo, and I think i'll like this game regardless, but I'm just plain sick of games like this that cater to the stupid people, and not the life-long strategy lovers.

Mike_B
21st May 2005, 09:36
I like strategy games myself but as far as I'm concerned the game doesn't need to come with those features.

In the end it's a design decission. Pyro must have found that it would be better that way, it's their game so they can pretty much do with it what they want with it.

Psychonaut
21st May 2005, 10:29
How would losing business be a “better” way?
No, the game doesn't "need" to come with those features, or any features for that matter, and you're right it is their game and they can have whatever they want or don't want. But They are out to make money on their product, and by alienating a good portion of their potential customers they are making a very unwise business decision, I guess you call it a "design" decision(the only design I see is the shutting out of potential customers, as I stated in my previous post by adding the feature both parties would be happy) , I disagree that it was a design decision, I believe that the pause/command feature is usually one of the last things to get coded in a game therefore making it a likely candidate to get canned when you are trying to rush release a game, feel free to correct me on that last part though.

Otherwise can you please explain this "design" you all keep talking about. If you mean realistic gameplay, you have got to be kidding as there are so many ridiculously unrealistic features already implemented, none of them bothers me though, and it is just a game, not real war. Even if that were the case, those that want that type of “realistic” command without pause can just not use it, extremely simple just don't push the pause key. Everyone would have been happy had they put this feature in the game and Pyro/Eidos would have sold more units. But like you said it’s their game they can have it any way they like, but by that same token don't complain when your game flops due to low sales or low customer satisfaction, these things heated complaints lead to no longevity for their game and the developer develops a reputation for making sub par games etc.

I don’t think this issue will break their game but obviously they ARE going to lose some sales because of it (obviously there are potential customers here who refuse to buy because of it, I’m sure there are lots more, but hey it’s their money or lack of)if it remains this way, how many we will never know, but when I do business, the loss of just one sale is important, especially if it could have been avoided with a very simple solution.

Remember though, its not too late to change this decision (patch)and make everyone happy, and increase your sales at the same time, what could be better.

Mike_B
21st May 2005, 11:08
The design I'm talking about is that when they started thinking about the game they probably created a design document which they followed so I'm guessing seeing as Pyro even after requests haven't implemented the features never planned it. But yeah maybe it would be wise to implement it as long as it's selectable I won't mind.

As for the game not being realistic again I don't mind if the color of a uniform isn't as it should be to certain people as they said in an interview if they needed everything to be correct they'd have to cram a few extra cd's because the uniforms and flags changed over time. Now of course it wasn't a too wise decission from the marketing department to announce it as reallistic and for history bufs.

Oh and just for the record I'm not involved with Pyro or Eidos, unfortunately :)

Psychonaut
21st May 2005, 11:44
I don’t mind any of the unrealistic stuff at all, like I said it’s just a game. The uniforms cannons, cavalry etc.none of those issues bother me. I am talking about how some people justify their anti Pause/command stance by laying claim to the fact that Pause/Command is unrealistic because in real combat the commander cannot pause the battle and give commands. By not implementing Pause/command, some may see this as an overall attempt at making the game more realistic(dare I say "design?"). This is as a very childish and nonsensical and contradictory point of view as they will not accept that type of unrealism(Pause/command ), but all the rest of the extremely unrealistic stuff they will( not uniforms etc. but birds eye view camera, game saves etc.the list goes on and on), it’s silly and makes no sense.

Webrider
21st May 2005, 18:02
I like alot of the design they encorporated into the Strategy portion of the game from what I am reading.... Except not being able to heal units if you pick one branch vs another... that sounds a bit .. unbalanced... but the rest sounds very interesting .... This is a strategy game not a war game...which I like .. I dont want a replay of history exactly. So I really do hope the give us TBS folks a bit of a handle to be able to play the real time battles with as little annoyance as possible. I hate to resort to auto resolving the battles :eek:

Gelatinous Cube
21st May 2005, 18:41
@m.. when all these people are clamoring for a feature that, by all accounts, should not be that hard to put in.. you think they ought to re-evaluate that "Better business model" thing? eh?

Goatee
22nd May 2005, 10:37
i have played the demo, and really liked everything i saw, excpet for the fact that i could not pause and issue commands!

i prefer to game with a beer or two in my hand (two makes it more interesting), and thus i lose half my men in the blink of an eye and a tilt of the bottle.

The only thing stopping me from going and getting this is that there is no pause and command option, otherwise i would have gotten it the second it came in.

Derfele Carne
22nd May 2005, 10:47
I am a big fan of RTW.
I am an avid reader of the "Sharpe" Series. (They are Historical Novels by Bernard Cornwell if you are interested. Sharpe is a redcoat who then becomes a rifle-man in the British army. -if you are interested)

I saw this idea & thought I have to get this game!
Played the demo, beautiful graphical feast :)
Much more depth with Naval Battles, research, quests & eras. Plus a meaty diplomacy system !


Why I haven't bought the game --> no pause & command...
It just made it too hard for me, an older gamer (mid-30's) to really enjoy it. I just can't do the click-feast I used to.

I came here to see if pause & command was a feature in the full-version, sadly not.


A simple proposition from me:
Enable me to pause & give commands & I will buy the game (plus expansions options...yeah, if I like the game I always buy the expansions).

I have 5 friends who enjoy this type of game.
We all live off the pause & command feature of similar games.
I am sure they will respond the same as me.


I hope you can change this one feature...

Geordieman
22nd May 2005, 11:30
Its a marmite situation. You either love it, or loathe it. We've gone for the `no pause command` flavour. Some love, some loathe, we cannot please all parties (well we could by having it as an selectable option - but dev team liked the no pause command so didnt)

:( jaycw2309 If the dev team were purely in the business of producing a game they liked and not too interested in sales and profits then that might be a reasonable position to take by them. I am sure Edios and Pyro unlike it seems the developers want to make money out of this game well digest this I and three other friends bought one copy £29.99 to try it out and like has been said were mightly unimpressed at the lack of pause comand, speed slider and moral. As a result of this unforgivible lack of common sense (again if you want make money) my 3 friends will not purchase this game untill and suitable patch comes out. Ask the developers if they can afford to loose £89.97 multiplied by thousands. remind them that ignoring the customers wishes means that people will not buy the game no matter how good other parts of that game may be.

Sting
22nd May 2005, 11:40
Damn.
Damn you all! I was just on my way to buy the game, and decided to look the forums before I go. And now I see there is no pause-command. Maybe, but just maybe I could pass over that...but no MORAL!! WTF! everyone know that moral is very important, especialy in battles Napoleon was fighting...This could be a great game, but unless there is Morale, and pause-command I'm not buying it...

I was realy looking forward to this..damn.

Jertsy
22nd May 2005, 11:55
I too was going to get this, but after seeing that there is no Pause/Command function - I will not be purchasing it, not at the moment anyways....

Tanyrhiew
22nd May 2005, 12:12
You can pause the game (spacebar). From what I've played so far, the key is to setup your groups before you hit the start battle button (you can deploy ala RTW except in the historical battles). When you notice things are going to hell in a handbasket, hit the space bar, move the camera so you can see whats going on, postion the cursor on a target, keep one finger on the key for the group you intend to use and the other on the space bar :D Not ideal I know, but I am winning the battles - even if I don't have many men left afterwards (cavalry seem to be the first to get it).

Mike_B
22nd May 2005, 12:31
but unless there is Morale, and pause-command I'm not buying it...

I was realy looking forward to this..damn.


There is morale in the game, maybe not to the extent some would want it, but it's there.

Duke of Marlborough
22nd May 2005, 12:48
No game that includes a "Pause/Command function" can be called an RTS, a Pause/Command function would hardly be real -time.....

a speed slider for the game would however probably make a real impression. although myself prefer it as it is, allowing you to make a charge unseen by someone viewing another part of the map. its Called be aware of what is happening at all times.....

If you pick a good vantage view you can see most of the battle and if you put units on control keys you can respond accordingly to most situations....



hmm 1815 @ waterloo....

ooo Wellington, sir, french cuirassiers are charging your infantry , would you like to form square or would you like to use your cavalry ? hmm.. hold on pause it for a moment and let me check where we stand...

yeah I can see that happening, Pause/Command function is for wanna be Multi Player leaders with out the tactical awareness of high pressure situations.

Pause/Command function only works for the SP game where the CPU is pre programmed to move to counter your threat. As an option it should be incorporated for use by SP players if they wish. But not for MP players.

The biggest thing ppl should be worried about is the camera view and what you can see when u play against a real person in MP.

(another rant about this)

Line of Sight camera views are needed, you should not be able to see the whole field of battle if woods and hills/buildings obsure your view. You should only be able to see what your units can see...

(rant over)


comments and flames below, I'm a man I can take it.......

Svend Karlson
22nd May 2005, 13:14
No game that includes a "Pause/Command function" can be called an RTS, a Pause/Command function would hardly be real -time.....

ooo Wellington, sir, french cuirassiers are charging your infantry , would you like to form square or would you like to use your cavalry ? hmm.. hold on pause it for a moment and let me check where we stand...

Pause/Command function only works for the SP game where the CPU is pre programmed to move to counter your threat. As an option it should be incorporated for use by SP players if they wish. But not for MP players.

comments and flames below, I'm a man I can take it.......

hehe no flame from me, but a rebuttal of sorts :)

1. The RTS genre is hardly that tightly defined, and if it was it would be a full time job explaining to people that Dune II actually wasn't an RTS after all. Arguably very few RTS's actually involve any S, only tactics, but I don't think the taxonomy that it slots into matters to anyone.

2. Wellington didn't use a mouse to order his troops, so realism is hardly the obstacle in this case. If you want your battles to be totally authentic the army is usually recruiting ;)

3. I don't see anyone asking for a multiplayer pause function. I just want it for singleplayer. If the singleplayer game isn't playable for me, I would not buy the game on the strength of multiplayer alone.

Sting
22nd May 2005, 13:29
This game is an RTS?


'nuff said.

p.s.
Thx for the Morale explanation :). Still, ****ing cossacs have better morale system :P

Geordieman
22nd May 2005, 13:52
No game that includes a "Pause/Command function" can be called an RTS, a Pause/Command function would hardly be real -time............

Why could they not put Pause and Command in as an option in that way people like you could continue to play they way you like the only difference is that the large number who will now not buy the game because pause/command is not there would be able to buy it and play the way they like too.

I can only put the lack of Pause/Command down as a combination of incompetance and sheer bloody mindedness on behalf of the developers who seem to be intent on cutting their noses off to spite their own faces because in the end they will suffer as large numbers vote with their wallet in not buying the game.

Psychonaut
22nd May 2005, 14:35
Marlborough,

Correct me if I’m wrong but I haven’t seen anyone here asking for Pasue/Command during multiplayer.
Your statement that “No game that includes a "Pause/Command function" can be called an RTS, a Pause/Command function would hardly be real -time.....” is not true. In that if you don’t place your finger on the pause button they are the same as the games without the Pause/Command feature
According to you games like these would not be RTS, but feel free to make up a brand new word as to what they are?
Age of Empires
Sudden Strike2
Blitzkrieg
Stalingrad
Galactic Battlegrounds
Rise of Nations
Dawn of War(limited but good enough)
American Conquest
Cossacks 2
Sid Meier’s Gettysburg
Sid Meier’s Antietam
Waterloo
Total War Series
Nexus
Soldiers Heroes of WW2
These are just the ones I’m aware of , I’m sure there are more.
You are also unique in that you are the first person that I’ve ever encountered that was concerned about realistic camera view, interesting. So you must place the camera on one section of the battlefield and force yourself not to zoom any higher than eyelevel nor move the camera any faster than your calvary assuming you are on a horse as a commander(in your mind that is). Also why not be concerned about delays in your orders to troops that are a just little further off from your position(troops out of earshot that is, or what you would consider earshot), maybe you should use a stop watch before issuing an order, you know to simulate command delay. Also this game doesn’t simulate “amount of ammo” are you stopping your fire after a certain number shots(some more some less depending on how well supplied you felt that unit was)? You mentioned cavalry charges, in real life many times the cavalry charge did not hit its target, are you simulating this by every now and then charging your cavalry just past your target and not hitting anything. Also the cannon seem to unlimber too quick(not realistic enough ), anther thing for your stopwatch. Camera view isn’t the only important thing in reference to realism that adds that “high pressure” you’re looking for. I’m sure there are other “Realistic” things for your gameplay that I haven’t mentioned that you can apply, feel free to get creative. But hey maybe you are willing to play that way, and you can, what fun! Only thing is you might have a tough time finding an opponent who is willing to play the same way, in multiplayer that is, but you never know you might get lucky, why don’t you start a thread on it see what you can find. Just trying to help you out here and make the game as realistic as possible for you in multiplayer that is, as you stated..

Webrider
22nd May 2005, 16:08
Errrr.... Im sure Wellington had some competent commanders who just might form a square if charged by cav.....he was not alone in command on the field each and every regiment had a commander who made some decisions... and slowing the game down to zoom in to watch the battles up close is half the fun for me.... if im zoomed out all the time who cares if the graphics are good or not.. you just see a small portion of the graphics at zoom out level.

raydude
22nd May 2005, 21:07
It seems to me that pause/command would not be needed had the developers put in an option to get closer to true real-time. That is, 1 second game time = 1 second real time. With that sliding speed option I could dial it down to 1-1 ratio, and give myself enough time to give orders.

AND you can get people who complain that "real-life battles can't be paused" to shut up because I would be getting just as much time to consider my commands as Wellington or Nelson did in their battles.

After all, in Nelson's time naval battles would take hours in "real-time". Do me a favor and give me that same real-time option.

lilfreaker
31st May 2005, 23:20
im pretty sure for the speed thing u can just go to options and change pieces movement to slow or very slow and it will be good. try it. cuz i had mine on very fast and they went so fast and during the battle i went to options and changed it to very slow and it was slow. so yeah try it.

Webrider
4th Jun 2005, 00:09
Call me "whatever" :cool: but I like to speed it up while they march into place .... then slow it down once the cool graphics "combat" starts happening. To give orders and just to observe. This is a feature common to this type of game... Like being able to group units and give them a number in a RTS is common to that type of game... if your missing a feature ... you come up short of the expectation.. however that expectation was derived ...and will be judged accordingly. I believe the speed you mention is the speed for the movement of the pieces on the strategic map.

FingolfinRingil
4th Jun 2005, 14:00
A pause option isn't important to me, I've played half a campaign without even thinking about pausing once ...

However I'd really like a speed up option ... sometime on large fields it can take 5-10min before units meet up and fight. It can be really annoying and a simple speed up option (SP only probably) would make me a lot happier.

ilovestrategygames
5th Jun 2005, 06:00
I do want to play this game so badly because it has so much potential. But for now it sits on my shelf because my life is too hectic to play a game without a pause option. But if a pause option is ever put in you can bet your (bad word) :eek: I'll be playing it full time :). It's a really great game, I just hate having all my troops killed because someone in my family needs my attention :(

Ryoken
5th Jun 2005, 11:29
There is a pause button; the spacebar. You just cannot give orders while paused, that is the problem.