PDA

View Full Version : Expanding Unit Sizes



Akkra
20th May 2005, 01:11
Hello Everyone,

I was wondering if any of the modders(Berdan comes to mind) have explored the possibilities for expanding the meager unit sizes to better reflect their historical realities?

The unit sizes now are very small and for those with the computers to handle it, i think setting the unit sizes higher would create an immensley more powerful game experience.

What do you guys think?

Colonel Ives
20th May 2005, 01:54
Is there no adjustment option as in the TW series ?

Akkra
20th May 2005, 02:21
No, there is no adjustment possible implemented in the game as of right now that i can see.

Also, in the manual i found this little interesting/infuriating tidbit: "The most noticeable difference in the empires is the colour of their uniforms. On a tactical level, the troops have the same combat values in each of the empires, but there are some units that will not be available for certain nations. As an example, the British have no militia, but do have the unique "Congreve Rockets".

Does this mean that my french fusiliers have the same combat abilities as russian infantry and austrian muskeeteers?

There is no difference between the empires except their F**king uniforms?

I beleive in making games fun as well as historically accurate, but this is insane, having austrian dragoons and british dragoons with the same stats completely decimates whatever "historical accuracy" this game had in my eyes.

You've got to be kidding me, this is a joke right?
Someone tell me i'm wrong.

LiQuiD_PaRaDoX
20th May 2005, 04:06
Is there no adjustment option as in the TW series ?

Its weird how RTW sometimes has changes to unit sizes depending on their experience.

If you're interested in playing single historical missions with a more accurate unit size, then try downloading / searching for the "Historical Battles" mod for RTW and "Rome Total Realism" mod.

I hope they make a mod / patch that puts more people per regiment in Imperial Glory. This game looks like it has a lot of potential!

Maybe they'll make a sequel based on the US Civil War

Queeg
20th May 2005, 04:29
No, there is no adjustment possible implemented in the game as of right now that i can see.

Also, in the manual i found this little interesting/infuriating tidbit: "The most noticeable difference in the empires is the colour of their uniforms. On a tactical level, the troops have the same combat values in each of the empires, but there are some units that will not be available for certain nations. As an example, the British have no militia, but do have the unique "Congreve Rockets".

Does this mean that my french fusiliers have the same combat abilities as russian infantry and austrian muskeeteers?

There is no difference between the empires except their F**king uniforms?

I beleive in making games fun as well as historically accurate, but this is insane, having austrian dragoons and british dragoons with the same stats completely decimates whatever "historical accuracy" this game had in my eyes.

You've got to be kidding me, this is a joke right?
Someone tell me i'm wrong.

Actually, it appears from the manual that base units for each nationality will have identical stats. But, those stats will improve based on experience, tech level, etc. So the differences in units in actual practice will depend on the choices made in gameplay, not on some rigid adherence to alleged "history."

It is true that French infantry in the Napoleonic period tended to be superior to their counterparts, but why was that so? Was it because Frenchmen were inherently superior to Austrians? Probably not. More likely, French superiority reflected better training, leadership, equipment, doctrine and a host of other intangibles similar to those modeled in the game.

Yes, the French had historical advantages. But they weren't arbitrary, just because they were "French." Rather, they were the result of the very sorts of strategic choices that the game allows the player to make.

There's a difference between a wargame, which should faithfully attempt to model the historical subject, and a strategy game, which allows players strategic freedom within an historical context. If one wants a game that meticulously models Le Grande Armee, then there are any number of wargames on the market that probably would be a better choice. It seems to me that IG strives to offer something different.

Colonel Ives
20th May 2005, 05:54
Its weird how RTW sometimes has changes to unit sizes depending on their experience.

If you're interested in playing single historical missions with a more accurate unit size, then try downloading / searching for the "Historical Battles" mod for RTW and "Rome Total Realism" mod.

I hope they make a mod / patch that puts more people per regiment in Imperial Glory. This game looks like it has a lot of potential!

Maybe they'll make a sequel based on the US Civil War

Thanks, already playing RTR 5.4, and loving it.

Maybe those chaps will have a go at IG, too.

That'd be cool.

Colonel Ives
20th May 2005, 05:56
Actually, it appears from the manual that base units for each nationality will have identical stats. But, those stats will improve based on experience, tech level, etc. So the differences in units in actual practice will depend on the choices made in gameplay, not on some rigid adherence to alleged "history."

It is true that French infantry in the Napoleonic period tended to be superior to their counterparts, but why was that so? Was it because Frenchmen were inherently superior to Austrians? Probably not. More likely, French superiority reflected better training, leadership, equipment, doctrine and a host of other intangibles similar to those modeled in the game.

Yes, the French had historical advantages. But they weren't arbitrary, just because they were "French." Rather, they were the result of the very sorts of strategic choices that the game allows the player to make.

There's a difference between a wargame, which should faithfully attempt to model the historical subject, and a strategy game, which allows players strategic freedom within an historical context. If one wants a game that meticulously models Le Grande Armee, then there are any number of wargames on the market that probably would be a better choice. It seems to me that IG strives to offer something different.

Your point on development is noted, but the starting positions should be different.

At the time the game starts Prussian Infantry for instance was very highly trained as was the French, and hence better than Russian or North African equivalent units.

It is this better level of development that should be reflected in the start up ratings for the various units.

Queeg
20th May 2005, 06:08
Your point on development is noted, but the starting positions should be different.

At the time the game starts Prussian Infantry for instance was very highly trained as was the French, and hence better than Russian or North African equivalent units.

It is this better level of development that should be reflected in the start up ratings for the various units.

France and Prussia both are given initial advantages in Officer Training, which means they can more quickly field larger, more diverse armies and take advantage of certain battlefield formations. Not a perfect solution perhaps, but a nod toward the distinction you suggest.

My guess is that if the starting positions can be modded, some enterprising chap will do so.

Colonel Ives
20th May 2005, 06:28
France and Prussia both are given initial advantages in Officer Training, which means they can more quickly field larger, more diverse armies and take advantage of certain battlefield formations. Not a perfect solution perhaps, but a nod toward the distinction you suggest.

My guess is that if the starting positions can be modded, some enterprising chap will do so.

Hope so. :)

screamingpalm
20th May 2005, 06:30
Actually, it appears from the manual that base units for each nationality will have identical stats. But, those stats will improve based on experience, tech level, etc. So the differences in units in actual practice will depend on the choices made in gameplay, not on some rigid adherence to alleged "history."

Not sure what you mean by "alleged history"? :confused:
So if I am playing a campaign, and the AI controls, let's say France and Spain, and the AI just happens to make better choices for Spain....then Spanish militia would be far superior to France's line infantry? I mean, I am not expecting a whole lot here, but Carnage & Glory II has such detailed stats for each REGIMENT. For combat rating (excellent, good, average, poor, contemptible), fire rating (excellent, good, average, poor, contemptible), class (guard,elite, line, militia, irregular), experience (crack, veteran, trained, conscript), and from these you get an overall rating A+ to D-. This is a partial list of stats and all of these can be edited as you like from what you have read or think about a certain regiment. Now, Im not expecting all of this from IG, but just to show you an example of a game with some detail. :)



It is true that French infantry in the Napoleonic period tended to be superior to their counterparts, but why was that so? Was it because Frenchmen were inherently superior to Austrians? Probably not. More likely, French superiority reflected better training, leadership, equipment, doctrine and a host of other intangibles similar to those modeled in the game.

If it quacks like a duck....etc it probably is a duck. Be it by training, or what have you, it would add to the immersion to have units be at least somewhat accurate. At the least stat-wise.


Yes, the French had historical advantages. But they weren't arbitrary, just because they were "French." Rather, they were the result of the very sorts of strategic choices that the game allows the player to make.

It is not true that the French always had historical advantages, but that's for another topic. Their main advantage, however was Napoleon himself, who's presence will not be present on IG battlefields. Strategic choices are what makes it fun. If one would think Carnage & Glory II is limited in any way because of its' detail they are totally wrong. The detail makes it feel like I am actually in the situations as those commanders were in, and it is fun to say what if this happened, etc. If anything, it broadens your choices.


There's a difference between a wargame, which should faithfully attempt to model the historical subject, and a strategy game, which allows players strategic freedom within an historical context. If one wants a game that meticulously models Le Grande Armee, then there are any number of wargames on the market that probably would be a better choice. It seems to me that IG strives to offer something different.

Like I said above, your argument has no validity as the more detail and accuracy there is, the more immersion and feel for the actual historical context you will have. Has nothing to do with tactical or strategic freedom. The things so many are complaining about are issues with basic fundamentals, and yet not to a "meticulous" model. I used the example of Carnage & Glory II just to show how detailed a game can be. I also know that I am comparing apples and oranges, and they are different types of games. I would settle for much less, but there is just so much missing.

Akkra
20th May 2005, 07:59
Thank you for the insight Queeg.

Some excellent discussion that has made pointson both sides, it looks as if it is up to the excellent modding teams to handle whatever grievances the community has with the game.

Yet the most important question goes unanswered, is it possible to mod unit sizes to better reflect historical reality? Is it possible to modify unit stats?

Basically, how much modding capability do we have with IG?

Thanks for the input everyone, please continue your discussions.

Yorkie
20th May 2005, 10:30
If it quacks like a duck....etc it probably is a duck.

:rolleyes: nice term fella like it..

screamingpalm
20th May 2005, 15:52
:rolleyes: nice term fella like it..


Well besides your dislike for my analogy, did you have anything actually constructive to say? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Queeg
20th May 2005, 17:47
So if I am playing a campaign, and the AI controls, let's say France and Spain, and the AI just happens to make better choices for Spain....then Spanish militia would be far superior to France's line infantry? I mean, I am not expecting a whole lot here, but Carnage & Glory II has such detailed stats for each REGIMENT. For combat rating (excellent, good, average, poor, contemptible), fire rating (excellent, good, average, poor, contemptible), class (guard,elite, line, militia, irregular), experience (crack, veteran, trained, conscript), and from these you get an overall rating A+ to D-. This is a partial list of stats and all of these can be edited as you like from what you have read or think about a certain regiment. Now, Im not expecting all of this from IG, but just to show you an example of a game with some detail. :)

It is not true that the French always had historical advantages, but that's for another topic. Their main advantage, however was Napoleon himself, who's presence will not be present on IG battlefields. Strategic choices are what makes it fun. If one would think Carnage & Glory II is limited in any way because of its' detail they are totally wrong. The detail makes it feel like I am actually in the situations as those commanders were in, and it is fun to say what if this happened, etc. If anything, it broadens your choices.


Like I said above, your argument has no validity as the more detail and accuracy there is, the more immersion and feel for the actual historical context you will have. Has nothing to do with tactical or strategic freedom. The things so many are complaining about are issues with basic fundamentals, and yet not to a "meticulous" model. I used the example of Carnage & Glory II just to show how detailed a game can be. I also know that I am comparing apples and oranges, and they are different types of games. I would settle for much less, but there is just so much missing.

You have a point where the historical battles in IG are concerned. To the extent those seek to recreate history, the units should be accurate and varied.

My post was directed more toward the campaign game. I guess the design could have taken one of two routes: (1) assume that Napoleon is an inherent part of the French setup and give them built-in advantages accordingly or (2) set each nationality on more or less equal footing and let the player be the Napoleon (of any nationality). For a strategy game, as opposed to a wargame, I think the latter choice is the best. Let the outcome be decided by the choices the player makes, not by those made by the leaders at the time.