PDA

View Full Version : The Patch/suggestion Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 11:18
Ok now that the game is out and everyone is playing it, alot of people will know by now what they would like tweaked, added, or fixing. Most gamers know that this is where the forums are going to be flooded with 101 threads about what people want different, so to save having a dozen threads on whats realisticly the same subject (what you want in a future patch) please put your suggestions here.
We all know that Eidos/Pyro read these forums, so by making it easier for them to see what we the public want by having it all in the same place, were more likely to get it. So post away about what you love and loathe about the game!

Oststar
20th May 2005, 14:10
1) Give an attack bonus for infantry vs squares, because the tightly packed square would be at the mercy of the soldiers with freedom of movement, who could outreach the squared infantry and slice them apart.

2) Larger ship battles. Six ships is just not enough, slow the ships down a little maybe and add control groups so that you can make Vans, Centre's, Divisions, Squadrons etc.

3) Larger land battles, the given reason is "Rather than have thousands of look alike models Pyros opted for more unique units on the battlefield" which implies that a CPU would be unable to support larger battles. My 1.1ghz Athlon can support 3500 with no lag, imagine what a 4.0ghz can do. I'd also suggest making troop and ship levels a setting for the player, as some players will prefer smaller battles.

That'll do for now, as those are wanted features, not a wishlist as such, the wishlist including an MP Campain.

Razgriz 1
20th May 2005, 14:40
I request,

If Intel Corp. can't find a way to go around their intel integrated chipsets. we could get the option to disable the feature in which we can't play the game while still having the same quality or less.

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 16:04
Thanks for your help :/ but unfortunatly i know there is no more Drivers for my DVDRW/CDRW drive... I'll go into a corner and cry now. I have bought 2 games that doesn't work on my PC :( will the Developers help me to get it working???

NAME: Philips DVDRW416

*looks to the skys!*

Email it to the address given in the thread which discusses this.. discanalysis@eidos.co.uk

Hope its okay, but am going to delete the `conversation` thats been going on , to keep this thread just about the patch etc

jaywalker2309
20th May 2005, 16:40
get a fecking lobby like rtw ejets
wtf did you make a game without a lobby for even EA can make ****ing lobbys im totaly outraged and thats why im pissed off i waisted good money on a pile of **** so

For this have a 1 day ban.. you are not providing anything of any use. Chill out for a day

Stereophobia
20th May 2005, 16:58
After trying it out at a friends place (my copy is still in limbo/the mail) Ive got to say that I would definately like:


A pause and command, similar to the TW games, I know your trying to be as different from them as you can, its a good system
Slow down the movement rate, because right now it seems that either the troops are overdosed on cafeen and sugar

spoom
20th May 2005, 17:07
Slow the Battles down to manageable Speed.
I dont need to pause to micromanage, but if I go to check on my
flank and 30seconds or less later my whole army has been routed
cause 1 cav unit came through and got to my Infantry and slaughtered them
thats quite ridiculous. The speed the battles play now should be a "mop-up"
speed not a combat speed. I really want to play this game something fierce
but cant untill the battles show some semblance to real life situations/combat.
BEFORE YOU TWEAK ANYTHING ELSE TWEAK THE BATTLE SPEED
sorry to yell but without that you will lose a lot of gamers.
I have already boxed my copy up and put it on shelf
till its fixed, and tha kills me because I had super high hopes for this Game

P.S. Im not a kid, Im an adult and a serious wargamer who
really sees the "RTS" as being an awesome way to play this
Era of Battle game and thus I hope you can get it right.

The Red Menace
20th May 2005, 18:34
Gameplay speed definately needs to be adjustable.

Also, I use a laptop to play. I don't have a mouse, I use a touchpad. As such I can't figure out how to zoom in and out with the camera. It doesn't look like IG allows the user to adjust the hotkeys. It would be great if I could set the hotkeys to my liking.

Inara
20th May 2005, 18:45
I request,

If Intel Corp. can't find a way to go around their intel integrated chipsets. we could get the option to disable the feature in which we can't play the game while still having the same quality or less.



I second that

boojeboy
20th May 2005, 19:41
Instead of making quests just a bonus to be collected it might be fun to make the prize an ability to trigger an event, an example:

Continental System
============
6 Ship of Line in port, Ability to trigger a several turn blockade against a particular Empire

(This may already be a quest)

Gelatinous Cube
20th May 2005, 20:09
I second the pause & command request. Slowing battles down might be too drastic, but pause and command would at least make things managable--especially for the ship battles.

anthrodog
20th May 2005, 20:50
Here is what I would like to see:

-except for fortifications and urban environments, knock off the melee. I'm not playing a pre-gunpowder game here. A bayonet charge generally came after a prolonged series of volleys whereupon the wavering line fell back or fled when the other side began to slowly advance. Even the vaunted British charges broke and then saw the French fleeing or falling back, not being skewered. Medical records showed that most wounds came from artillery and then muskets. Very little bayonet wounds except for the afterforementioned urban environments.
-musketry is way too accurate at range and should only begin telling when units are halted, close and ripping shots into each other(with no melee).
-I think seeing officers, drummers and standard bearers would really enhance the experience.
-K, there are only two incidences that I have heard where a square was broken(one at Albuera and the other I forgot). Sorry, but cavalry should only have like a 5% to break one. Otherwise, why have the formation at all? Go into square, you risk major casualties from artillery and formed line.
-The morale situation has been beat to death, but it really is pathetic. Cossacks II has a decent one, but fighting to the last man was really rare throughout warfare. Course exceptions, the unit at Eylau, etc. It is possible this is really an abstraction whereupon a unit breaking would just run off the field anyway, thus being no different than be massacred. Still, the Total War battles, with their string of dead and fleeing is so much more representative of what it would have been like. I don't know, but does a wiped-out unit affect the morale of other units within a certain range, cause if it doesn't, that is reprehensible.
-For sure, battles move too fast.
-Artillery is too easy to crush. Maybe an automatic canister shot without player intervention should occur when enemies are almost upon them from the front.

Hope that either Pyro or modders are reading this thread because I believe with some of these changes us Napoleonic buffs can finally have a pleasurable game where we don't hackle due to obvious historical errors. Course some other games, from Matrix will be out soon that will be much better at representing the tactical aspects of this period, but most gamers are usually not aware of the company and it's hardcore wargamer audience. Best games I can recommend for Napoleonic battle right now are Breakaway's Waterloo and Austerlitz titles which do not suffer from some of the above statements, but the graphics are quite dated and not nearly as gorgeous as Imperial Glory. Address the issues listed in this thread and I think IG will be king of the hill.

LiQuiD_PaRaDoX
20th May 2005, 21:21
^^^^ nice suggestions...

Also, like in Sid Meyer's Gettysburg, they shud have the option to "fire at will" or "volley"

and fixing bayonets should take some time for the whole regiment to get it on.

Im not too sure about the Napoleonic wars historical accurateness on strategies/tactics, but what about group formations where the front rank can kneel.

- also... should add a skirmishing mode... esp. for the long range rifle regiments

BabyShambles
20th May 2005, 22:47
Please , please , please make it so there is a choice on how to control the camera . I prefer up , down , left and right to do just that .At the moment left is turning the camera left and right is turning the camera right . I would like to be able to customise it so left strafes left and right strafes the camera right .

Oh and the speed too ,should be slowed abit . Anyway great game im enjoying it , just i just can't get used to the camera .

wolfetone
20th May 2005, 23:19
I would have to agree with many of the previous comments. Here are a few thoughts of my own that may be repetitive of what others may/might say, but:

Make political annexation much more difficult. I watched as France swallow up Hannover, Spain, Batavia, HR in 5 years. Not saying it shouldn't happen, but it seems way too easy. Also, Austria had swallowed up almost everything east, west, north and south of it (all the way to Tunisia) at the same time.

You can change leader names but why not Unit names... Line Infantry 6 charging off the HMS IWANNANEWNAME loses a little of the flair. Just a thought though.

Maybe a better way to indicate where you can attack from or to. I spent too much time trying to unload my troops into Denmark and it not letting me regardless of the zone I was coming from. But maybe that is just my ignorance.

PAUSE/ORDER or a speed slider in battle. Yeah, I know... another one who's not necessarily a click-monster.

Not sure if this is something I'm missing or not but can you ever group multiple ships together. It gets a wee bit annoying having to move every ship in a "fleet" each turn one sea zone at a time.

Anyhoo, those are just some initial ideas, but I still love the game so anyway. One thing might be nice (again, not sure if I haven't caught it yet) but is to have more options with espionage, etc. I watched France gobble up Spain in no time and it would be nice to fund a revolt or something like that....

Anyway, have fun!

acurafool
21st May 2005, 00:57
I have only been playing this for a few hours, but already I see some things that could be fixed. Some of them have already been said...

~A pause option in battle. It would be nice to pause the battle to get a better view of what’s going on around you, just incase some random division is routing or whatever. Also, if I need to go to the bathroom, I have to wait until the battle is over. That hurts sometimes. hehe. I know your trying to make it the most realistic possible, but a pause option would be nice.

~I think we should be able to choose from more than the 6 or so countries that you start with. This isn’t a big deal, but more options would be cool.

~I don’t know if it’s just me, but the rifles seem too accurate. I thought that early 19th century weapons were extremely inaccurate.

That’s pretty much what I would like to see changed, there is others, but most of them have already been said.

Gelatinous Cube
21st May 2005, 01:03
Personally I rather like that you can only play as one of the big empires of the time, and that the rest are everyone's playthings to invade or manipulate. I think we should focus this thread on dire issues, not just wishlist things that will probably be modded.

For the record, Pause & Command is an extremely important feature of any strategy game such as this, and it's omission is a big mistake on part of the developers--especially in light of the fast-paced battles.

Wolfgrin
21st May 2005, 03:18
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?

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.

Hannibal-Sun
21st May 2005, 03:56
OK - I have not had a chance to play the ship battles so any issues there will come soon - I'm more the land battle general type so here's my pennies since it was requested:

A) Controls! We have got to have better controls of the men. I'd really like to be able to be creative and set up a thin line for a wall of guns if I am down to no men or thicken them up if I have a sufficient number. Otherwise I really like the idea that you can not get the men in certain formations because they lack either experience or education to do so. That is a very realistic part of the game in my opinion.

1) Get a time slider for single player. I really hate waiting for men to come from one side of the field to the next to attack or climb a hill. It would be nice to be able to speed that up just to get in more real tactical battle time.

2) Morale is urgently needed. I still can not appreciate a group of warriors with no guns and no real experience staying on the field after seeing all their partners blasted to bits by artillery or by guns.

3) Shut the guy off who's talking crap from the sidelines - I don't need someone to tell me my troops are being slaughtered. I need to be able to sense it another way. In the Napoleanic era, I don't think the radio walkie talkie existed so I'd prefer to see the battle and keep an eye on my men and read their thoughts somehow. Otherwise, informing me of the obvious and sometimes not so obvious is annoying.

4) When picking men for a quick battle or MP battle, please make it easier to choose your men and give them experience. It takes more time to pick one unit, give it experience and then want the same for the next unit but have to click click click to get experience. I know it's pick a man click the experience, but I'd rather cut down on that if possible - is that where people mention the "click-monster"?

5) Please increase number of players per side to three or more. a 2 v 2 is okay but the more the merrier. The CPU will tell us what we can host and cannot (by crashing or whatever) but we have got to be able to do better than just 2 v 2.

6) Please make a lobby so I can talk to people and hook-up for a fight. Perhaps it is a lobby but it was empty when I went in - no one was playing MP -- must still be getting used to the controls.

7) If you do something about morale, make sure you give us an ability to call back routers that have more experience or guts. I don't want morale to just see the enemy rout but to kind of provide more strategy on a field of battle. This will be great when working with others on a team...some of you know why.

8) The accuracy with muskets and big bangers is crazy in this game. However, I think the accuracy should increase with experience but the blast should still provide some fear to those with or without guns depending on if they are being shot in the arse or flank or head on with no way to bust back.

9) Now I love war games and tactics but I am not that far up on this era. Were the horsemen able to bust shots from horseback? Magnificent seven style? Could be a devastating charge- BLAST while charging and knock off a few more blocks.

I really like the sickness of the guys shot struggling on the ground. If you guys like that, why not try some horsemen falling off horses and their horses being captured or fleeing the field without a man. *shrug* Just a little dime for much later after we see more from Eidos and Pyro collabos.

Take care all.


I'll stop there, but

Webrider
21st May 2005, 06:20
Speed Slider .... Pause .... Moral....

Start with that for sure.... I will buy the game after pause to give orders and speed slider are added or the price point is 19.99 which ever comes first. You could sell me a copy for 40.00 tomorrow if you patched it tonight :rolleyes:
Otherwise I have the fortitude to withstand an impulse purchase.

Your game suffers the dubious distinction of falling into my favorite category of games... so I am here on this site in anticipation... after seeing the faults and playing the demo, I can wait. Normally I would just see a game on the shelf and buy it then be disappointed and hope for a patch.... I actually dl one demo in 30 games I buy.

Paolai
21st May 2005, 08:35
a disingage command would be very useful. Maybe it is just me, but i cannot disingage a unit when it is fighting.

Toomin
21st May 2005, 09:14
a disingage command would be very useful. Maybe it is just me, but i cannot disingage a unit when it is fighting.

Well, if you're talking about melee (hand-to-hand) combat then that is intended, as it's kind of hard to turn and run (and get bayonetted in the back). I think cavalry should have some sort of command like this though--they might suffer more casualties as they disengage, but they are faster than infantry units.

Paolai
21st May 2005, 09:20
Well surely a disingage command means more casualities, but sometimes it is better to save just some men instead to loose all of them.

Yes and especially for the cavs it is very important to have the possibility to disingage.

A disingage command is necessary imho.

cliffski
21st May 2005, 11:24
is it me or is the camera a real pain? why can't all strategy game ship with WSAD quake style cameras? sod the acceleration, i cant control anything! is it just me? by all means have multiple camera modes, but what I wouldnt give to be able to have mouselook in this game (or are these all options I can't find?)
please add mouselook and a toggle for camera inertia in the inevitable patch!

favedave
21st May 2005, 13:47
I've been playing for 2 days straight now, and here are the top 3 thing I'd like changed:

1. When the computer is doing its turns on the strategic map, the map jumps all over! They programmed the screen to center on the piece moving. This is terrible design because it's like the world is having a seizure. If the pieces moving are on the screen - THEN DON'T MOVE THE MAP - JUST MOVE THE PIECE. Yikes. Mucho annoying.

The map should only move if the piece moving isn't on the screen when it moves. Especially because I'm sure most players set the computer to move its pieces fast.

2. Customizable keys. It's hard to believe that in the year 2005 a game would ship without customizable keys. For example, in World of Warcraft you can make any key command into any other key command you want. That way people can do the camera how they want, movement, etc. The battlefield controls are not to my liking - so let me change them! This is basic commonsense interface design courtesy.

3. The most boring part of the game is waiting for your troops to march into battle. Then when you get into battle, things happen too quickly. You've probably heard this a million times, but this is where a speed slider is necessary. A toggle key so you can toggle to speed up the game till you get close to the enemy, then slow it down to normal to fight.

"Normal" speed, btw, needs to be a little slower than what it's set at now. You've kind of crippled the game here.

Some people want to pause and give orders - and that's one way to play. I would prefer to slow it down a little and not pause. You can easily accomodate both playing styles...and you really should.

The only reason you (and I mean the designers) won't change it is because you want to shoot yourself in the foot and sabatoge sales of the game.

It shouldn't even be a queston. A game like this without a speed slider is like selling a car with only one gear.

There are other minor interface problems, but these are the three main things that make me not want to play anymore.

Oh, and the other major problem: HOW ABOUT A MANUAL? The pdf file that comes with the game has very little information. We need to know things like what the different governments do, more info on how combat works, etc.

You should be glad people like the game enough to want to fix it.

eastcoasthandle
21st May 2005, 13:52
is it me or is the camera a real pain? why can't all strategy game ship with WSAD quake style cameras? sod the acceleration, i cant control anything! is it just me? by all means have multiple camera modes, but what I wouldnt give to be able to have mouselook in this game (or are these all options I can't find?)
please add mouselook and a toggle for camera inertia in the inevitable patch!

I have to agree with you on that. The camera control is a bit odd to get use to. The camera should be able to:
1. turn in incriments of 3 degrees for a full 360 degrees
2. pan out more during the map and in the battles. The current settings causes blind spots on places you should see.

That's all I really want is the ability to turn the camera at an angle to a full 360 degrees. Also, to pan out more in the map, you should be able to get the whole map on your screen. I also have to ask for the same in the battle mode. I am not the only one who has to keep flickering left or right view because you are being out flanked simply because you cannot see enough of the battle field. Or you can only see your army or the battle on an angle instead of a straight overhead view.

Please help, I know that all these post might be overwhelming but most of them that your read have do offer help in how to make the game better and, they do mean well.

:)

cliffski
21st May 2005, 14:05
generally the game is pretty good, but it could be much better with a few small tweaks. Adding drummers or bagpipers is a must, and its silly that a 2D RTS like cossacks had them and this game does not. pause and command or a game speed is a must. One thing nobody has mentioned is the limber speed. It seems abit pointless to need to unlimber a gun (not horse drawn) if i can get it done in 1 second. a 5-10 second setup time for cannon would add a lot more tactics to deploying your artillery.
Personally I'd like to geta precise bodycount as a mouseover on the casualty bars in the battle interface.
I agree about the dorky voice "your men are getting slaughtered". yeah, I noticed, thanks.
I actually really dislike the flags bobbing up and down thing. Its blatantly nicked from total war, and a bit off-putting. I'd rather have proper standard bearers, ideally affecting morale.
Seems to me like a good game that got rushed out at the last minute. I know what thats like from a developers POV, but froma customers POV its no excuse. Ideally a decent patch could really boost the games appeal.

eastcoasthandle
21st May 2005, 14:13
This is something that the modding community may do but as an added bonus "for those of us who don't care about realism" it would be nice to have some sort of game editor to allow us to pick and choose clothing and the color of the clothing. Also a map editor would be nice.

bucephalus12
21st May 2005, 14:15
The only thing which has been driving me nuts is in the dipomacy screen; please give us a way to toggle gold/resources in increments of more than 10 when negotiating commercial deals. It is very time consuming to have to click the "+" and "-" boxes to get the numbers up into the high hundreds and thousands. It breaks the pace of the game.

Being able to issue orders while game is paused would be great as well as the speed control idea but the lack of these options are not a game killer for me.

As mentioned previously, being able to strafe/slide the camera left or right with the arrow keys. The way it is set up now it seems redundant with two ways to turn the camers left and right (move mouse left/right, use left/right arrow keys). It is tough when you want to move slightly to left or right and you first have to turn the camera in that direction, then move forward, then turn the camera back the way you want to face. This is very time consuming in the heat of battle -especially so in a game where you cannot pause and issue orders. It also makes it tough to enjoy the beautiful graphics of the battles. Many times, when my troops are in the thick of it, I do not have time to fuss with the camera so I am settling for a less than desirable view of the battle in order to stay in control and keep my guys from getting creamed.

These are just my wishes for things to see in a patch. I do love the game and it is perfectly playable straight out of the box.

Hannibal-Sun
21st May 2005, 14:42
The voice that says I am losing the battle is interesting.

He says it even before the combat begins (while men are walking to the scrimmage line).

This tells me one thing, because it seems to happen whenever I have less men than the enemy, and that is that the game is set-up to win based on number of men versus strategy and tactics.

I believe nations with the strongest pride and morale have faced difficult odds and overcome them throughout history. Creativity is always a must when the odds are against you. So, please patch this game to be an RTS Real Time Strategy (on the battle field) and not just a QUICK bout with the enemy where the enemy gives and takes accurate shots on the noggin and where they have more men in the first place auto win. That is pretty ridiculous and it's sad if this game stays the way it is because unlike console games I can not trade this one in because it is ultimately software.

I somewhat like the strategy on the economic and diplomatic side so I will keep playing and seeing how that goes. I am trying to see what is up with the game as soon as possible so you guys won't have to patch it a number of times. But hey - we all do what we gotta - so you do your job and develop and tweak and I'll continue to convey the issues and any suggestions to repair where I can -- and I'll do my best not to compare to other games although there are other games (much older than this one) that have such detail it makes me wonder why this game does not have such a degree.

Take care all.

ptan54
21st May 2005, 14:51
The developers would do well to take a leaf out of a very successful Napoleonic engine - Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle and Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory.

1) Pause and command option. Makes life much easier. There are naturally RTS anoraks who insist upon every game being a clickfest and "He who clicks fastest wins". Strategy gamers tend to enjoy the thinking aspect - to have your plans foiled because you can't click fast enough around the map is nothing but infuriating.

2) Speed slider. Same commentary as above.

3) Morale. Enough has been said. At Austerlitz, I believe most of the Russian casualties were incurred when the fleeing troops escaped across the frozen lake, which was promptly fired upon by French artillery.

4) Ability to rally routed troops. Should take quite a while.

Other non-gameplay option points:

5) Map shouldn't bounce about in the Imperial Management mode.

6) More historical AI. Austria going all the way to Tunisia???? Ridiculous. Maybe it should be impossible for the European powers to annex any territory outside Europe (i.e. Asian Turkey, Middle East and North Africa) but only to appoint a puppet state there?

7) Larger battles. This would definitely require pause and command. It's difficult to be imagining that you're replaying Jena-Auerstadt, Wagram, Borodino and Leipzig when you're fighting with a measly few battalions. Naturally it would be silly to have hundreds of thousands of men on the map, but a larger army would be more conducive to simulating the gargantuan battles of the later years. This would presumably require either battalion sizes to be boosted or for the battle to involve a greater number of battalions. Having to hotkey more than 10 battalions may be a problem though.

8) Customisable hotkeys. Self explanatory.

Most urgently needed of course are the speed sliders and pause and command options. Morale would be great but I'd still be happy if that were not until patch 1.02.

Sharpe
21st May 2005, 14:55
The only thing which has been driving me nuts is in the dipomacy screen; please give us a way to toggle gold/resources in increments of more than 10 when negotiating commercial deals. It is very time consuming to have to click the "+" and "-" boxes to get the numbers up into the high hundreds and thousands. It breaks the pace of the game.

Just click the number with the mouse, and type in the amount on the keyboard.

bucephalus12
21st May 2005, 15:00
Thanks Sharpe! That's so simple I have to laugh at myself for being so dumb!

I tried a half dozen key combinations trying to figure it out. In my defense it was 3 AM.

Trafalgar200
21st May 2005, 16:07
Gameplay speed definately needs to be adjustable.

Also, I use a laptop to play. I don't have a mouse, I use a touchpad. As such I can't figure out how to zoom in and out with the camera. It doesn't look like IG allows the user to adjust the hotkeys. It would be great if I could set the hotkeys to my liking.

I'll second that, though at the moment I can't even play the battles due to the lock up bug :mad:

Sol Invictus
21st May 2005, 16:09
Webrider, I'm in the same boat. This game covers my favorite period of military history and I really want to love it and own it; however; I simply wont buy it if the tactical combat is a frantic clickfest and devoid of all reality. I can easily wait for a patch/mod to see if my concerns are addressed. If not I will simply satisfy my Napoleonic cravings with Crown of Glory and Empires in Arms in a few months. I would like to own this game as well but time will tell.

Svend Karlson
21st May 2005, 17:06
Please add me to list of people who will run out & buy it right away just as soon as an active pause & a speed slider are added :)

Psychonaut
21st May 2005, 19:19
Pause/Command

Speed Slider

Morale

StudUK
21st May 2005, 21:24
great game , but really surprised one cannot reassign keys???

Franciscus
21st May 2005, 21:31
This game seems to be a very promising one.
After the first few hours, the main things that need to be changed are, of course:
- to add a speed slider and to be able to issue commands during pause.
- Morale (I really do not understand how a militia unit can fight to the last man :D )

Maybe it's moddable, but a map editor would be fine (by the way, I really do not understand how a spanish developer named the two regions of Portugal Alentejo and Algarve), and the ability to play all nations also.

Finnaly, and RTW fans should know what I am talking:
- At least IG AI does not reassess after loading a saved game :o
- Let's hope Eidos/Pyros do not belong to the 2 patch club :)

BatSkinny
21st May 2005, 21:37
:confused: The speed slider is a must have or giving orders while it's paused.

:confused: Moral is also a must add.

As to the melee try this run a single melee unit in front of your Light infantry or Line all the enemy units are required to charge it and non of your friendly musket fire hits your own guys. :D

In the early game no piont in taking anything but militia as your units aren't powerful enouf until you get the double line formation upgrade (thats one line kneeling and one line standing. If you think the melee units are over powered try the Riflemen at 2-3 stars in a building, with a grenadier unit in front.

:confused: 6lb. and 12 lb. cannons are not nearly as good as they should be they are too short range and if you aren't going to allow them to shoot over the heads of friendly troops at least give them canister shot. A 12lb.er could throw canaster out 100 yards.

:confused: Infantry are too fast it's like they are all track stars I think they should be slowed down about 15% but it's ok as is.

:confused: I can't believe how hard it is to capture enemy artillary pieces. They have to be alive,then the computer has to order a withdrawl, then you have to pursue then you have a chance to capture :rolleyes: I fought a battle against the computer he had 12 howitzers I had 120 grenadiers I charged destroyed them in melee but I guess the bayonets damaged the guns too much :rolleyes: If you take guns with infantry in melee then you should have a chance of capturing the guns cavlry taking them in melee should have a greater chance as the gunners would have less time to spike the guns. The best would be if the crews are killed in melee the guns are left on the map and soldiers within a certain distance at the end of of the battle capture them automaticlly for there side.

BatSkinny
21st May 2005, 21:50
If I'm annexing Austria or any other major power. I've been camped around the capital for about 9 months when the computer brings in another army group. Why do I have to fight my way back into the city every time after you take the city once then you should be the defender unless it's a peoples uprising. Then they should start all around you and your holding the palace giving them that whif of grape!

eastcoasthandle
21st May 2005, 22:12
I personally haven't had an issue with the speed of the enemy. At times I have noticed the enemy covering more ground then normal at march speed. My army seems to be marching at baby steps compared to the enemy's approach. The AI seems to cover more ground then my army and, can reach me before I can obtain a stragetic position. Now if my army covered as much ground as the AI it would not be an issue. This is ofset by having my army to run at the start of battle giving me some advantage. It appears to me that this is a minor fix and if the file was editable (with note pad) we do it ourselves (hint-hint).

We need the ability to strafe the battle field. Enough about that

We need the ability to allow AI to control some units (for larger armies) during battle. For example: I would like cannons to auto fire by allowing the AI to pick and choice enemy targets (keeping them distracted) while I try to out flank them. All I need to to do is tell it to cease fire or disable AI until I need it again.

We need a map and character editor (this should be a more of a free download then patch). This can and WILL add tilt to the game.

We need greater height (pan out view) of the map screen and battle screen.

We need an option to accelerate time/decelerate time, time compression.
---------
---------
Now for the map screen:
It should take 1 month after you occupy enemy territory before you or AI annex it. It's not fun losing all that hard work you put into that land just to lose it all in 1 turn of occupation.

The Red Menace
22nd May 2005, 03:57
~I don’t know if it’s just me, but the rifles seem too accurate. I thought that early 19th century weapons were extremely inaccurate.


I think this also ties into the problem that battles go too quickly. I was also dissapointed with the fact that I haven't seen a unit be routed in the game yet, so I am assuming that this attribute was not added into the game.

Ship battles are quite frustrating, too.

Range for cannons definately needs to be increased. I'm constantly mowing down my own men because the range of the cannons is too low, and if I don't have something around them, they are open and vulnerable to attack.

The battle system is atrocious when compared to RTS gold like the Total War series. It's saddening that it shipped with a system so obviously lacking. I'm sick and tired of having to fight over that same stupid village every time a battle is fought in Poland. Terrain should have some degree of randomization and uniqueness to it.

The game's strong suit is definately in its diplomacy feature. In all other RTS I've played, I could never get the diplomacy card to work to my advantage, with the exception of Europa Universalis and its sequel. When playing games like the Total War series, I constantly find myself pitted against every single other nation. It gets to the point where the game isn't a realistic political or war environment, it becomes Me vs the AI. IG has a diplomacy system that lets the player flow from war to peace and from one alliance to another freely, and it shines for it.

The Red Menace
22nd May 2005, 04:00
Please add me to list of people who will run out & buy it right away just as soon as an active pause & a speed slider are added :)

The space key is the pause button and you can adjust the speed of battles by accessing the game options feature in the options menu (hit escape during either at the main menu, the campaign map, or during a battle or click the gear icon).

Svend Karlson
22nd May 2005, 05:20
The space key is the pause button and you can adjust the speed of battles by accessing the game options feature in the options menu (hit escape during either at the main menu, the campaign map, or during a battle or click the gear icon).

Active pause i.e. the ability to issue orders whilst paused.

The speed still does not go slowly enough on the slowest setting - that is my experience from the demo & from opinions of people who own the full game.

Right now for me it's like Ground Control II - I can see why other people would enjoy them, but for me the battles are just frustrating & not enjoyable.

Nahirean
22nd May 2005, 08:14
#1: LET US MOD UNIT STATS. PLEASE, GOD, PLEASE, LET US MOD UNIT STATS. WE CAN SOLVE MOST OF THE USER COMPLAINTS IF YOU JUST LET US MOD UNIT STATS! Tell us which FILE it is, or tell us HOW to do it!



<sigh>

Broadside
22nd May 2005, 11:31
I'm going to have to be the odd one out here and say I am really enjoying the majority of the game so far and I am a long way into my first campaign (1819) on medium difficulty. The diplomacy is superb! This is the first war RTS where I have been able to play a decent mixed combo of peaceful annexation with the odd war only where absolutely necessary to move a stalemate along.

I am really just not that bothered by the troop movement speed. It doesn't stop me winning battles and moving the game forward (which is what I want) and provided you have a balanced army of cav/art/inf you should be able to deal with most eventualities. I actually prefer not having the pause/command feature, for me that feels too easy and spoils the flow of a battle. I like getting into a mess and then pulling a success out of what looked hopeless on the battlefield at the start, very satisfying. Considering the small size of the armies fielded on each side in even the largest battles I am surprised most people are clamouring for pause/command. I can easily control the small forces on the screen. If they do increase the size of armies in a patch that might be the time to add pause/command, but for me right now it is manageable and OK.

Morale does seem to be working at some level. I have had many occasions where a unit has pulled out of a fight and reformed itself behind my main defensive line - they are surely doing that because their morale dropped and they sensibly retreated ? Is no-one else seeing this kind of activity ?

For me sea battles have become an autocalc feature. I commanded the first few bettles myself, but it did get tiresome chasing the enemy in ever decreasing circles around the map. Oh and why do ships drop off the edge of the world ?? Seems an odd feature to build in whereby if you get too close to the edge of the sea battle area you suddenly lose because in the heat of the battle you could not keep your eyes on the minimap to make sure you were still within it - thats just crazy :rolleyes:

One request - can we have more sieges? Maybe I have just not come across that many forts yet as I am largely annexing by peaceful means, but there do seem to be very few of the huge star-shaped style forts that played a big part in many Napoleonic campaigns. I really miss a good artillery shoot out and storming the fort type siege.

Other than the above I am really loving this gameplay so far :)

Derfele Carne
22nd May 2005, 12:00
Looking to buy the game, however I would request:

1) I am a sure buy if pause/command is added.

2) After reading this I would like to see fully customisable keys, including what the camera does when you move the mouse to the right/left edge. I would really value turn rather than step sideways. That way, the similar games I have can be the same controls.


Looking forward to see what you do with it...

Duke of Marlborough
22nd May 2005, 12:55
RESTRICT VIEWABLE CAMERA

The whole map is available to view and means the idea of moving cavalry behind woods or hills to flank or support an infantry charge, is a waste of time.

There needs to be either a line of sight camera or a restrictive camera that can only see what you could see in real life. This would allow you to move stealthly around the map and surprise your enemy

Hide in woods - unseen (in game - seen)
Move to outflank - unseen (in game - seen)
Use terrain to hide movement - unseen (in game - seen)

100% of movement on map - (in game - seen)


- a key part of the era, was flanking movements and unseen movement, this game has none.

Needs addressing.


Plus please allow for an additional speed slider or a few settings :

Gamespeed 50% - 100%

would help some of the MP whingers who lose and moan everything happens to fast, forgetting it works both ways in a MP game.

gunner54
22nd May 2005, 13:27
My wife and I have played the demo at length and now have the full version of the game.

We agree with many other's on the forum that there is a need for a pause/command system.

At least one contributor has asked for a menu item allowing for the switching off of the annoying commentator/narrator. I have silenced this irratating know-it-all's comments by deleting the folder on my hard disc that contains his sound files (of course keeping a backup copy!). So far I had no problems from undertaking this satisfing exercise. :)

There have also been one or two contributors that say they would only buy the game in its current form if it became much cheaper (£20). There is at least on online shop (Play247) who is offering the game at £17.99 inc p&p! And, no, I do not work for that store! But I do buy stuff from them on a regular basis.


By the way we love this game! Its the only RTS game my wife will play!

Oststar
22nd May 2005, 13:32
Whoa did I zone out... Left on the 16th... came back for a few posts... boom. Should have known the forum would explode.

1) Without playing it I strongly suggest Pyros adds the slider, too many people want it. I'd say active pause>slow>real speed>game current speed>pursuit speed.

2) Next in line is some interface changes for 1.3 patch: the limits are due in most to the interface... either change the interface yourself Pyros, or let a willing modder do it for you.

3)Groupings are essential: let units become locked into "platoons" the way Earth 2150 did; select one, select them all. Fixes many many issues.

4) Add in hotkey definement, enough said before, I won't use it personnally but many others will.

5) That voice described? Rip it out, as soon as possible. Most don't want it and it takes away from realism.

6) Ignore the camera remarks: the only people i've heard complaining are those who want RTW camera or can't figure it out. It's really a great camera: arrow keys to move forward, backward and spin, mouse to strafe and wheel mouse to zoom in. Great config!

7) Canister and Grape. Essential.

These (excepting 2) are all things you'll need in 1.1 patch or you'll get a bad rep. Many Americans are complaining already that shipments are late; it's the 22nd already and only one of my five interested American friends has been able to buy it. If you can get a good patch out fast enough it will cover up this shortcoming of someone in Eidos and IG will get a great rep.

Please, I really want to see IG succeed. For the game, the players and the devs, please fix these issues before people dub you "The Soldner of RTS"

cliffski
22nd May 2005, 14:22
It looks like the files in the individual scenario folders control camera movement:

.PITCH_SPEED_SMOOTH_ANGLE
.PITCH_SPEED_SMOOTH_MIN

setting these to zero thankfulyl stopped my camera drifting about like a drunken scotsman :D although it would be nicer to have global control over such things...

wolfetone
22nd May 2005, 14:27
OK, these are just a few things that might want to either be modded or patched:

1.) Healing Units: System of government shouldn't matter re: healing units. It's possible to "drag and drop" (not the map piece but the one in the "selection grid") one unit of the same type (and nationality) onto another and add men to a depleted unit but that gets annoying after awhile. Needs to be a better way to do it.

2.) Make political annexation more difficult. Don't know how many times I liberated a country only to have it get annexed by another within a few turns (in some cases). Case in point, the Ottoman Empire (with a decent size army and no enemies got politically annexed several times without a shot being fired (call me crazy for wanting a little more realism). NOt much motivation to free a country to have it give up its independence to a third party on the next turn. (And not the one it was liberated from).

3.) Diplomacy: Major bugs - doesn't explain why you can sometimes do a thing (such a give military aid to another nation) and then to two turns later you can't (even though nothing apparently has changed diplomatically, etc.) Also, I had cases where I gave large sums to a country only to have it disregarded each time. Doesn't make much sense to me. It does offer a lot of options now but these need to be tweaked a little.

4.) Ability to change unit names (this is more of a wish-list) thing.

5.) After "conquering" France, etc. it doesn't let you use its ports, pillage or whatever.... not much sense there either. If someone was conquered they were conquered, they might rebel now and then (or a lot) but that doesn't mean that the occupier didn't make use of its assets (ports, cities, etc.)

6.) Slow down the battle. No use enjoying the good graphics when click and scroll-athon is all you do. (And put the leaders in the battles....)

7.)Spies...Diplomats, etc. I know its a Total War/Civ thing but I like it anyway.

This is a very good game all the same and this is just my two cents worth. It just seems like this could be more than just Risk dressed up a little.

(PS... It would also be a lot nicer to be able to play on a world map, not just Europe ..... :)

pshirley
22nd May 2005, 14:47
Both gold and population are capped at 99,999 in my game, and I'm assuming it'll be the same with food and raw resources. I guess this is a design decision but I'm not sure I agree with it. I think I should be able to amass as much of a resource as I want. I guess it's a way of forcing you into fighting eventually (especially since I haven't had a war in at least 15 years while I build up things) but sheer boredom would accomplish that at some point. I really think this cap should be removed.

For the most part this game is excellent. Change the resource cap, insert pause and command, and let us speed up the land battles.

Duke of Marlborough
22nd May 2005, 15:13
6) Ignore the camera remarks: the only people i've heard complaining are those who want RTW camera or can't figure it out. It's really a great camera: arrow keys to move forward, backward and spin, mouse to strafe and wheel mouse to zoom in. Great config!



The camera remarks were not aimed at moving around and controlling it, They were aimed at the way you can see every enemy unit on the map no matter where it is.

I've never known any leader in 1815 or earlier being able to see over hills and inside or around buildings.

its a way to stop anything that should not be seen , from being seen that should be added. I've seen cavalry moving behind woods and starting to flank ppl, only to come out to be confronted by some psychic troops all ready to recieve them. this should not happen.

cliffski
22nd May 2005, 15:20
I disagree, the camera floats all over the place, you dont seem to have any control over it, and whats wrong with wanting mouselook? that button currently does nothing so enabling mouselook would be trivial.

spoom
22nd May 2005, 16:51
I think Duke M means Use "Fog of War" and I agree,
but I want bigger maps where you can march around hills to
flank enemy. Slow down the Combat, move speed, battle resolution speed,
add morale.This is a very nice game graphically but it is lacking in substance
for the purist who wants to re-create Battles from that era.

Duke of Marlborough
22nd May 2005, 17:24
bigger maps are of no use, u dont get enough units

Sting
22nd May 2005, 18:48
"The morale situation has been beat to death, but it really is pathetic. Cossacks II has a decent one, but fighting to the last man was really rare throughout warfare. Course exceptions, the unit at Eylau, etc. It is possible this is really an abstraction whereupon a unit breaking would just run off the field anyway, thus being no different than be massacred. Still, the Total War battles, with their string of dead and fleeing is so much more representative of what it would have been like. I don't know, but does a wiped-out unit affect the morale of other units within a certain range, cause if it doesn't, that is reprehensible."


SO:

1. Pause and command
2. Speed a little slower, and a speed slider
3. Morale issues, and units shouldnt fight to the death in meele. They should be able to run away :P and retreat.
4. Some balance issues, but its too early to say what exactly. They will come up as more ppl play the game.

And one final request. This game is good. But thats all. It can be extremly good. Just listen to the players. This game could be great...pls, pls make it great...

Gelatinous Cube
22nd May 2005, 20:22
Is Pyro even reading this thread? And if so, are they taking this (mostly) good advice?

BANANAMAN
22nd May 2005, 21:01
A patch with:

* pause & giving orders during pause
* hold/stand ground option
* gamespeed-slider

would be a nice thing. :D :rolleyes:

Oststar
22nd May 2005, 22:52
The camera remarks were not aimed at moving around and controlling it...

Post beneath you begs to differ. There are still people stupid enough not to figure it out: mousewheel for zoom, scrolling left and right, arrows for rotation and spin. So simple, but still people can't figure it out. As for seeing the enemy, i'd prefer a fog of war but it's not high on my list.

Cro_Knight
22nd May 2005, 23:28
i agree with berdans more forts seiges but with a little help a map editor will be in store to keep us updated with practise and technique because we would also create other historical battles

Kobra007
22nd May 2005, 23:41
All I ask for is Morale, where is it? PDF doccumentation refers to Morale, but I never see it in action.

Why?

Also, speed of battles is too fast.

dr dooom
22nd May 2005, 23:57
first of all, units should have possibility to disengage since in fight.

example: my cavalery attacks walking enemy cannons. because i cannot disengage after attack, enemy's infantry has time to engage my cavalery and slaughter it.

very stupid. makes 90 percent of cavalery tactics unusable and brings ig to 'rock, paper, scissors' complicity game.

second, enemy's ai in battles shoul be improved. they almost always charge at me, even when have minor forces and have to hold well defended point.

third, attack-defence recognition of battles should be improved.

example: i attacked piemont. crushed enemy forces and got their village. next in enemy's turn they bring another army from somewhere and... still i am attacking and they are defending. how come since i just conquered this village?

fourth, there is a glitch in defensive alliance. as france, i had d.a. with badovia (or stg like that, little country in the north:>). while it lasted, austria attacked them. they cried for help, gave me right of pasage, but... i didn't get involved in war at all :/ had to do it manually, lost a very important turn and so on.


besides it, usual wishes: fix morale, give us active pause and so on:)


i'll personally stop playing until at least some of the problems are resolved. right now, it's just to irritating:)

mkztg
23rd May 2005, 00:02
I second that
:mad: EIDOS needs to develop a patch - quickly - so that those of us who have purchased this game don't have to also buy a new video card because we don't have a "newer" video card. At least give us the option of still playing the game we paid for.

Thanks. :D

eastcoasthandle
23rd May 2005, 00:19
The Admin for CSII Thread CDV_WarGamer (I beleive) had some interesting things to say that may be addressed if the proper attention is given.

CSII Thread, posted by ADMIN (http://www.cdv-board.de/english/showthread.php?t=46378&page=2&pp=15)

Everyone take time to read what the ADMIN wrote and see if you agree. I have to agree that the grape shot and cannister should be added to the ground artillery.

The only thing I can say about Cossacks II is that the graphics are a bit dated but it has one of my complaints already solved just from the screen shots. A overall view of all your army, with a mini map to the lower right corner. Man that's refreshing.

It would be appropriate for the ADMINS on this board to post something about the suggestions made so far. Or else these suggestions will turn out into full rants and flaming...this is what I observed from the R:TW boards at that time. People can tell when interest in what was type is sincere or not by a simple acknowledgement by providing a summary of suggestions so far. So how about it?

Oststar
23rd May 2005, 00:46
:mad: EIDOS needs to develop a patch - quickly - so that those of us who have purchased this game don't have to also buy a new video card because we don't have a "newer" video card. At least give us the option of still playing the game we paid for.

Thanks. :D

If your card isn't on the minimum pecs then just forget it.

bucephalus12
23rd May 2005, 01:49
1) Without playing it......

6) Ignore the camera remarks: the only people i've heard complaining are those who want RTW camera or can't figure it out. It's really a great camera: arrow keys to move forward, backward and spin, mouse to strafe and wheel mouse to zoom in. Great config!

Maybe I'm the only one but my mouse does not strafe the battlefield, it spins the same as the arrow keys.

At the start of the post it states, "without playing it". Does that mean you haven't actually played the game?

I agree with you. If the camera was set up as you quoted above - great config.

Queeg
23rd May 2005, 02:33
The AI needs to be tweaked a bit concerning the units the AI builds. I annexed Denmark diplomatically and found that it had built nothing but howitzers. :confused:

Oststar
23rd May 2005, 03:14
Maybe I'm the only one but my mouse does not strafe the battlefield, it spins the same as the arrow keys.

If it's doing that I take it all back, that really would be hell to control.


At the start of the post it states, "without playing it". Does that mean you haven't actually played the game?

Whored the demo to death and then modded it, i'd have bought IG the day it came out in the US even if I had to sell the shirt off my back. Unfortunately Oceania has been disgustingly neglected (No site, no information and i'll bet when the patch comes out, no mirrors) so it comes out on the 27th, ten days after the US release, I only found out by contacting my Supplier, even then it was only the store run by hardcore gamers that had any idea.


I agree with you. If the camera was set up as you quoted above - great config.

If it was redesigned for the game I am very puzzled and sorry for my remarks, the demo got lower reviews from Gamespy for having bad camera controls, I assumed (Again, very sorry) that it was the same deal.

bucephalus12
23rd May 2005, 05:46
Well I finally figured out how to strafe the camera during battles - hold down the middle mouse button/wheel. I'm still discovering features of the interface the more I play.

MelL
23rd May 2005, 09:13
To me, the lack of morale determining how units respond is a real killer. I've tried several Quick Games in order to learn how units move so I have a clue how to play in Campaign mode, and it's silly to see French Militia take several volleys from the British Black Watch without blinking an eye. :(

Also, being able to customize how one controls the camera would be a nice bonus, as would the ability for units to be able to replace losses from combat without requirements. Afterall, how hard is it to tell a recruit to follow the veterans in an already formed unit? :p

colmde
23rd May 2005, 10:56
The mouse turns the camera as well which is wierd because in the demo it strafed.

For people with laptops, the + and - on the numeric keypad works too to zoom in and out on the battlefield.

Some of the things have been said before but just to add my name to the list of people who want them...

My wishlist...

1. Speed Slider (that can speed up the game as well as slow down, for those long marches)
2. Pause & Command
3. Morale
4. Restricted camera view... Though maybe with the ability to "Zoom" to far away places as if you had a telescope - just not see around corners or actually move the camera there.
5. "Fire at will" for all units (including ships). It's a bit wierd to see artillery continuously pound the same point even after all the enemy units have left. Or having to individually order each ship to fire when the enemy is in its green zone... Surely the individual captains could take the initiative and fire whenever an enemy passes in front of the cannons.
6. Friendly fire?
7. Redefinable keys & mouse

[J.E.v.O]
23rd May 2005, 15:20
why are the controls differt then in the demo??? in the demo I thought they were good....so change them or at least make a option to configurate it yourself...

Plughead
23rd May 2005, 16:04
For me, the key change has to be a line-of-sight type thing in terms of being able to view the enemy. The terrain is excellent, miles better than Rome, but if you can see all the enemy troops the landscape might as well be flat! I mean, if your troops are on one side of the hill and the enemy is on the other side, neither of you should be able to see each other, but you can at the moment. One thing I always hated about Rome was that sneak attacks, ambushes and so on were virtually impossible because the radar showed everything (especially galling was troops moving in the depths of the woods that could be 'seen' on the other side of the map by the enemy...utterly stupid). A Gettysburg-style system should be implemented

Yorkie
23rd May 2005, 16:12
strafing the cam can be done by A,S,D,W

1) The usaual - Pause and command - Speed ..

2) Naval battles - AI control option ie -- attack that ship

3) Unit speed - (not to be confused with game speed) - slow em down infantry marching is too fast in relation to cav imo

4) Diplomacy - When in a defencive alliance and your attacked my allys dont attack my aggressor (maybe i havnt noted but i lost nearly all of northern europe to Austria - Prussia - Russia whilst the French just watched)

- The same has also been with a coalition -

5) Units changing POV, can they just stay forward facing and have a force fire command like the Arty has ?

6) General AI tweak as far as battles are concered , eg- I hid a riflemen i a forest behind some hills for no reason at all apart from it looks good. and my main force upon a hill slightly further up . The AI the Stomed my "hidden" riflemen and the concentreated on my main force..

Whats the point in hiding them if the AI sees them..

acurafool
23rd May 2005, 21:44
I have been reading all the posts and I noticed that a lot of people want a slower battle speed. I noticed that in the options you can turn down the speed that the pieces can move, thus making the battles slower. Here is a picture... just turn down piece movement speed and the battles will go a lot slower.

http://images5.theimagehosting.com/ig.JPG

(type name here)
23rd May 2005, 23:06
I think it's either minks or izhora, it's the one with the fortified city, in quick battle when you play as defender and have all you units garrisoned in houses, the a.i will just stand there, even if you un-garrison your units. A major bug with the a.i

MelL
24th May 2005, 00:56
Oh, I forgot to mention the tendency of the AI in naval battles to head the edge of th map and cruise there, making it likely that you'll lose a ship or more due to being out-of-bounds. I was fighting a battle over the weekend, two of my ships of the British Royal Navy, versus one of the French Navy, and I was winning... until I lost both ships due to leaving the map because I was trying to maneuver to fire on the enemy.

Talk about frustrating! Either the edge of the map should have a clearly visible border to show the limits, as in Star Fleet Command, or the AI should be adjusted to keep it more towards the middle unless it's trying to run away.

Gelatinous Cube
24th May 2005, 03:06
I've noticed that when defending, the AI never sits in a fortified spot and waits for me to attack them, ala the Hanover battle in the demo. This takes alot of the fun out of the battles, as they all turn out the same way with little variation in the enemy's actions.

Once again, I hope Pyro is reading this and taking notes. As shown by the boycott on CA, supporting your game and making sure it works properly is an extremely serious issue.

ilovestrategygames
24th May 2005, 03:10
After trying it out at a friends place (my copy is still in limbo/the mail) Ive got to say that I would definately like:


A pause and command, similar to the TW games, I know your trying to be as different from them as you can, its a good system
Slow down the movement rate, because right now it seems that either the troops are overdosed on cafeen and sugar


I agree, a pause and command like the TW series would be great! I really want to love this game but I cant really play it until a pause is implemented. And slowing down the troops would be good too. IG has tons of potential, good job! ;)

Gelatinous Cube
24th May 2005, 04:18
Yeah, you can slow down troops speeds.. as the fellow above so kindly posted a picture of.

CrossWire
24th May 2005, 06:50
Yeah, you can slow down troops speeds.. as the fellow above so kindly posted a picture of.

I thought this also, but I don't think it does. It slows the pieces on the strategy mad that you can clearly see but I noticed no difference in speed in the battles.

My biggest grief with the game is "The ships that go POOF!"

Gelatinous Cube
24th May 2005, 07:21
The more I play this game the more I see how many of the suggested "fixed" offered in this thread are a case of misunderstanding. For example, the trade system. It works just fine, i'd not have it any other way. In fact, i'd be dissapointed if Pyro changed it. The way it works right now means it's a key factor in whether or not you go to war--if you add some kind of tax system than you can be self-reliant, which wouldnt fit the idea.

All the game really needs is bug-fixes and Pause & Command IMO.

ruftops
24th May 2005, 07:59
Game is good, but needs major improving!
think the tech tree and research takes far too long, by the time I reach the third era theres only france, austria and russia left. Also the french seemed to take a country every two turns! takes us ages to build consulates, then upgrade to newspaper buildings, and so on. and by the time you get the percentage level up, france nips in from nowhere and takes the country from under my nose using the peaceful annexation!! This is happening everywhere in the game! I was the most advanced, yet they're percentage level jumps up from 50% to 90% within the space of 5 turns! (peaceful annexation with minor countries)

Battles are interesting
I played as britain, 4 Grenadiers, 12 pound canon, and dragoons, against two sets of lancers and some militia and a regiment of light infantry! They attacked with their lancers I formed squares fired at them with my twelve pounder! few dead horses littered, but they still charged, destroyed my canon then set upon my infantry, and before I know it I've lost!!!!! How the hell!!!! Enemy cavalry seems way too strong!! That needs to be fixed.

Gelatinous Cube
24th May 2005, 08:51
I like the slow tech tree. Survival of the fittest. :cool:

nicholas
24th May 2005, 14:47
Hi:
Add one more voice to the "I will buy this game immediately, if, and only when, the developer patches in pause-command and a speed-slider" chorus.
Best,
Nicholas

kamikazi
24th May 2005, 17:36
The most important things I can think of are these;

A speed up battle bar.

Ships of the line being more heavily armoured (harder to destroy, I took a Man'o'war against 5 scoops and they won? That is simply not possibe, a Man'o'war is way too heavily defended in armour, a scoop wouldnt attack a man'o'war in ANY situation except if it was almost destroyed already.

The scoop should have at least 2 chaser cannons facing forwards.

The Frigate should have about 4 chaser cannons at the bow, and have 2 stern cannons.

The Man'o'war should have 6 chaser cannons and 4 stern cannons.

The Frigate is also too good against a man'o'war, I suggest improving the Man'o'wars armour strength. Also increase the shortrange broadside cannon strength.

Also the ships should be a fair amount slower, the scoop should be the slowest and the frigate and battleship should be about the same as each other, but they all need to be slower than they are at the moment.

An easier to read compass with easier to read wind direction

Would it be possible to have an option to increase unit size?

A personal opinion would be to have drummer boys attatched to each unit and you can set them to drum which increases morale (you would also be able to hear it playing)

An option to turn off the time limit in games that dont have an objective.

An option to set a game with farms, like waterloo, so that it requires the capture of all farms to win not just a majority held until the time runs out or the enemy is destroyed.

Would it be possible to increase sinking times of ships?

The last few things are these, ships should be harder to set on fire, there should also be a chance that the gunpowder can go and the ship literally explode, but that should be very rare.

The Man'o'war should take less damage from colliding ships, the frigate take less damage from the scoop ramming and the scoop doesnt need altering in that respect.

There should be a risk of rigging entanglement.

Hope these help, I feel they are farely important and would add that extra atmosphere to the game.

I hope they help :)

OGGleep
24th May 2005, 18:03
Is the team going to contiune to support the game, or have they been reassigned?

kamikazi
24th May 2005, 19:28
The horse drawn connon (not howitzer) should be able to go really fast. The point of a horse drawn cannon is to ride up very quick, fire, then run off, you cant do that in this. Also wheres the grapeshot?? cannons should use grapeshot at very close range, that really would make this game more fun :) of course it would have to be very short range, but very effective.

Rowlf TM
24th May 2005, 19:46
in multiplayer its annoying you cant have your own army in 1v2 and 2v2, plus you cant tell who has each unit, and i found half way through my team mate would start using the unit i was about to use. maybe a player flag on the units at the start would help. or make sharing an option, not a necessity.

Also my team 'mate' took all the artillery, most of the cav, didnt reply to me in the chat, and when i moved only one of the artillery units to my side of the field, he moved it back.

Also I can only join games by directly putting in the ip of the host.

I can't host full stop.

Serious faults and needs fixing asap

indeed
24th May 2005, 20:38
at least make 50% of the ppl who have brought this game, let them play it, including me! half of the ppl have an intel graphics card (includin me) and we feel let down by the requirements, and by the sound of it this game has bein poorly made, by the amount of complaints about bugs and that annoyin message 'application cannot be initalized'! if u do not get ur act together than most of ur gamers will never buy one of ur games again! includin me! so Eidos most ways ur gonna loose money from angry gamers! :mad:

wolfetone
24th May 2005, 22:55
I've said this before but I really like this game. It has a lot of potential but some things do need to be addressed. I'm sure a good modder could also come up with some solutions (hint, hint).. Anyway, here goes:

Fix the AI: Half the fun of the game is military conquest. Allowing entire nations to be gobbled up because they "accepted" a few pounds here, a few francs there and a shekel and a hlaf over there is unreasonable. I'm not saying "peaceful" political annexations didn't happen but not on the scale it does in this game. And not that allies one minute weren't die-jeard enemies the next... again,not on this scale. No playing the benevolent benefactor in this game. I've freed the Ottomans and others half a dozen times just to see them sell there freedom to someone is unrealistic. If you're going to grant a nation it's freedom they would be a little more reluctant to go right back to the previous conquerer (i.g., the Ottomans being gobbled back up by the Austrians in lest than 12 turns.)

Gotta run, but that is a major irritation.

BigNellieStyle
24th May 2005, 23:34
I want to see more blood... the ability to line up multiple units by dragging them. I also don't want the men to disappear once they die...also make MP so that it has a lobby...

King Rich
25th May 2005, 12:34
I think that a patch should be downloaded to do the following:

I think that the range of howizers and cannons need to be greatly increased. I also think it would be cool to a Zulu battle on it and Zulu Charachters.

I also think it would be cool if you could have the formational tactics from Zulu, the one with two ranks and the front rank crouches and fires whilst the back rank stands and re-loads, they then keep moving backwards leaving bodies where they have been.

What do you think about that??? :rolleyes:

Any other ideas?? :rolleyes:

GenMoore
25th May 2005, 12:41
Well why not put this in the Bug thread at the top.

As for extending arty, well I beleave its fine the way it is.

Cannons fired further than Howitzers, and this shows good in the game.

Do not want Arty to have an advantage do we, when it was good at its correct ranges. :)

As for the Zulus, well thats another time and story, this is Napolionic times :D

King Rich
25th May 2005, 12:58
I realised about the post just after id put it in lol.

On the game however, howitzers fire futher than cannons. it is also not realistic that Cannons fire like 120 whilst normal line inf. fire about 60, it's just not accurate, in the old days, artilery used to be about a mile away from the battle, just shelling over the top. Big Berther the cannon the Germans created in World War 2, to destroy the bunkers at brussels could sit on the french coast at calles and hit london, a good 50 miles away may be more.

There should be an expansion pack for this game that is based around the crimean war, which to be fair is only like 50 years earlier.

I like the guy that replied to me before, sorry ive forggoten your name lol. you seem quite cool to be fair!!! :D

emoxcore
25th May 2005, 14:21
MORE RPG ELEMENTS FOR THE COMMANDER!

as is i dont have ANY connection whatsoever to who the commander is. i just see him as a tool to put my units it.

maybe each battle he wins allows the player to choose a skill like "better attacker, better defender, better morale, etc)

this might seem like a "rtw clone" idea but damnit. if you want a great game you have to take ideas like that and implement them in your own way.

imported__MB_
25th May 2005, 15:26
I have quite a hefty list but before I go into it can I just congratulate you guys in development and distribution for making a game I have been waiting years for :D

Major things I'd like to see:

Set ships to automatically fire when in a given range. In large battles I lose track of what ship is where and sustain a lot of damage through not firing as often as possible.

Ship formations.

Grouping fleets together on military map.

AI to stop friendly ships accidentally ramming each other.

Musket/Cannon accuracy reduced at long range, bonus at close range.

Cannons to be able to fire balls, grape, canister.

Infantry morale to be breakable. Clearing up every last enemy unit is causing most of my land victories to be pyrrhic, I'll get crushed one round later.

Cannons to take a hell of a lot longer to reload.

Army leaders to appear on map. By this I mean a commander and a small entourage of limited (if any) offensive capability, not the 100-strong cavalry generals like in Rome:Total War.

A unit size slider like in total war games. My pc can easily handle the game at the moment, I'd like unit sizes in the hundreds. 60 looks so piddly.

Customisable keys.

Maybe this is just me being stupid: I can repair ships but cannot for the life of me work out how to restore troops? The restore button is permanently unavailable.

Minor things I'd like to see:

Pictures of your monarch/leader and those of other nations on diplomacy screen.

Autocracy/Democracy to actually have a meaningful change in how your empire develops apart from affecting other empires' sympathy for you. Maybe Autocracy makes military buildings/units cheaper, democracy makes civic/trade structures and units cheaper.

Information about individual empires in diplomacy.

Immigration/Emigration changes in the population, possibly dependent on the number of land/sea routes opened up.

Thats about it for now. I hope those with the power agree :)

Isledall
25th May 2005, 15:32
I want added to the units:
bagpipe
drummer
flagbearer
officer

and no more falling of the map with ship battles... increase map size and show edges with borders.....

Asper
25th May 2005, 15:33
Hi there,

First of all, it is good to see a great effort embodied via this game. Great graphics and great mix of Land and Sea Battles... especialy when most developers seem to ignore sea battles - you guys gave us an improvement in this respect and in the whole Napoleonic era game genre.

However, no game is perfect and every game can be improved even further. The following are what I feel the game could improve in - and although most of these were raised before - I think if repeated it will further validate the most important points.

1) Camera View - please allow mouse look and strafe left and strafe right. The current camera movements have made me miss out on a lot of battlefield content - very frustrating.

2) Speed toggler - This is a RTS standard, I understand realism - but the reality is that none of us is a Napoleonic soldier full time, we have lives and would like to speed up marches. Battle speeds must slow down.

3) Battle Pause - this is critical.

4) Rifle accuracy, I understand if veteran elite units shoot accurately - but green or average troops should not be as accurate. Also, please minimize the melee tendencies... most fighting in the era was musket range.

5) Allow unit size controls - this will give players the option to maximize their CPUs without sacrificing the graphics.

6) Ability to join units - especially smaller beat up units.

7) Morale - This is definitely another critical aspect of the game - especially in a campaign mode. Morale is 90% of an army's strength - Need this displayed and tweaked.

8) Ability to disengage - Need to be able to disengage.

9) As an enhancement I would definitely increase the number of ships involved in a Naval Battle.... 6 ships beyond unrealistic - AI is gonna have to play a factor in larger battles.

10) A further enhancement - and something a lot of people will agree with is the ability to play smaller states. Every game of this genre gives you the usual Big Players of the war.... but how about the smaller states? I think it is a lot more challenging for human players to play the role of Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, or even Spain (not so small a power), among many others!... If any of us has any experience in this genre of game you know that by taking any of the 5 major nations that you will win the game.... even at a higher difficulty level - which many games simply boost enemy troops and supplies to simulate difficulty. Please think out of the box and give us something different and fresh - challenge us by giving us the opportunity to rule the small underdogs. Then we'll have a challenge in our hands.

Please Fix Portugal's Alentejo Province - the Alentejo in real life is actually comprises of most of Southern Portugal - yet you generalize the North as such... it is like calling Galicia Andalusia, or Northern Italy Sicily.

Cheers,

Asper

imported__MB_
25th May 2005, 15:41
Smaller nations possibly unlocked after finishing the score campaign with a larger nation?

Shadowknight
25th May 2005, 15:41
i agree with Asper, couldn't have said better myself.

kamikazi
25th May 2005, 16:11
One thing that annoys me is that it says the Battleship is the largest and slowest ship, yes maybe its the largest but it isnt the slowest, a Frigate and battleship are about the same speed and the sloop should be the slowest!

Another thing I agree with is to play other factions, Spain played a major part in the Napoleonic theatre, a huge amount of battles happened there and their navy was one of the biggest. I also think the Ottoman Empire would be very good to play they played a major part at times.

A few other things I agree on with other people is the bagpipe drummer flagbearer officer to each unit.

Icreased cannon ranges.

Bigger sea maps with borders marked.

More factions.

a way to turn unit sizes up etc (I think this would be a very good thing to have)

I also think that now and then American frigates should appear in European waters, this did occur in real life, ships such as the Constitution would sometimes raid British Frigates etc.

A generals command unit.

Certain titles should be able to be added to ships such as 'flagship'.

Altered AI

longer sinking times on ships.

ship explosions (VERY rare though)

Ship flooding but not sinking sometimes.

Visible damage and holes on Ships, falling masts aswell.

damaged rudders etc.

different ammunition types for field cannons.

I also dont like my units to stop firing and charge the enemy when in range, they should keep firing until ordered!

stern cannons and bow chaser guns on ships.

Musket fire between ships that are very close.

sloops should be more easily desimated by battleships!

Broadsides down ships sterns should be more effective.

Another ship I would consider adding is a Cutter, about half the size of a sloop with 8 or so cannons on a broadside.

You should also get mercheant ships with very little armament that you can attack to damge your enemies trade.

And thats all I can think of today lol, But I would seriously consider adding nearly all of the things people have mentioned.

Neil S
25th May 2005, 17:05
I have only just bought the game. I have played a few battles and a few turns of the strategic game. I think this game has big potential but I have two major suggestions from this (admittedly limited) experience.

The first one is to address the common complaint that the battles are too fast - plenty said on this already and I would have thought a relatively easy fix.

The second is to reduce the lethality of musket fire and artillery fire, combined with improving the extremely crude or virtually absent morale effects. This is absolutely crucial as I seem to get to the end of battles with everyone or nearly everyone dead. This is completely unhistoric and actually quite tiresome to play. Please please please less casualties per round of fire. Morale, if it exists, stinks. At the moment I have units who happily stand in a killing ground being wiped out to the last man. Better morale rules makes for a more interesting game as units would retreat or break before they were wiped out. Breaking enemy morale then becomes a key alternative strategy to winning battles to one dimensional attritional slugfests.

These two points are linked in that the impression I have is that the designers have used a "battle as Doom type game" approach: pretty to look at, quick to finish, bloody, and a test of reactions and dexterity rather than brainpower. This may appeal to some: it does not appeal to me. Compare and contrast with the Total War series.

I agree with many of the other comments made so far, eg camera handling (though I am getting better at it), longer ranges for cannon and a more lethal short range fire from cannons (reflecting cannister shot etc), the poor handling of large naval combats etc. The other gripe I have is that I don't really like the tech tree approach, but I can live with it if the other things get sorted out.

Maybe I have an irreconcilably different vision of this game than the designers. I don't think so, as I think the basic concepts are fine. They just need a bit of finessing to make it more playable and enjoyable.

I hope there will be a patch. If they can get it right I think this one could become a firm favourite.

Neil S
25th May 2005, 17:19
I think that a patch should be downloaded to do the following:

I think that the range of howizers and cannons need to be greatly increased. I also think it would be cool to a Zulu battle on it and Zulu Charachters.

I also think it would be cool if you could have the formational tactics from Zulu, the one with two ranks and the front rank crouches and fires whilst the back rank stands and re-loads, they then keep moving backwards leaving bodies where they have been.

Another idea, although it would be quite difficult, would be to create your own ships. You should also make different nationalities have stronger areas than others, e.g. GB's Navey and Basic footsoldiers should be more powerful than say Spains.

What do you think about that??? :rolleyes:

Its really a question as to whether you want an historically accurate game or not. The tactics in Zulu only work if you can reload your rifle quickly. Perfectly possible with a breach loaders of that era (which if I recall correctly was the 1870's). Completely impractical in the era of muskets that took anything from 20 seconds to 1 minute to load depending on the competence of the troops. A more accurate idea, and quite fun to look at, would be the rolling volley: British line infantry would, after the initial one or two volleys, fire by platoon working from the edges in, giving a rippled or "rolling" volley. However, I would classify that as a purely "nice to have" compared to more fundamental issues.

I tend to agree that the range of artillery needs to be increased.

[J.E.v.O]
25th May 2005, 17:58
I would really love to have a multiplayer campaign...that would be awesome!! Just do your stuff and click ready and if they all did you go to the next turn.... maybe it's not very fun to do it on-line with people you dont know but it would be cool to do it together with friends!!

kamikazi
25th May 2005, 18:12
you could have an online campaign where you save it and it loads when you start up a server with your friend again that would be amazing!

Asper
25th May 2005, 20:25
I agree, we're missing the multiplayer campaign... that is the only advantage consoles have over our PCs... developers seem to shy away from this concept - not sure why. :rolleyes:

Woogie14
25th May 2005, 20:29
I am an avid wargamer and have studied Napoleonic warfare and have co-authored a set of Miniature wargame rules for the Napoleonic era.
I want to first say to the people that want more powerful artillery. What won battles in Napoleonic times was maneuver and combined arms not just arty. Yes Arty can get overrun easily but that is only because you are not protecting it.
Here are some suggestions that I have that would make this a more realistic sim.

1. Add a Fatigue factor - Cavalry shouldn't be able to keep charging and be effective. Horses and men get tired and cannot perform as well as a unit that is fresh.

2. Add commanders and command and control - that is what made the french so good was their command structure allowed for more diversified movements whereas the Austrians were limited. etc.

3. When you lose a battle you shouldn't lose your entire force-unless you squandered them. Rarely did an army get wiped out completely. You should just take a hit on resources (captured baggage train and supplies) ex. get back 25% of losses.

These are just three suggestions that I have from a slew of ways to make this the ultimate Napoleonic wargame. Overall I enjoy this game and will continue to play regardless of any patches.....that is why I have miniatures and a gaming group.

wolfetone
25th May 2005, 22:07
I am going to add one comment about this though.... Even though it can end up being a clunky way of bringing a unit back to full strength.. It is kind of neat in a historical way (and one that might cause me to re-think my opinion of the "restore health" option under autocracies. I mean, in a truly historical sense... Let's say like Napoleon near the end of his reign did... he still had many Guard units... but they were in many cases not the same quality as his truly (veteran) units in past engagements because in the end the quality of the replacements went down as he was just trying to keep BN strengths up. So, you could still have a full strength unit that might still have remnants of veterans from many past engagements, but the units were mostly made up of new (green) recruits. So, the quality could actually be less than a Line unit that still had most of its veterans from previous engagements. So, maybe something could be tweaked to make replacements (whether autocratic or not) either come from other veteran units or you put "new" recruits in and that should lower the ratings for the unit proportionally. IMO the merging system (that is, if you took veterans from one unit and replaced their losses with veterans from another unit then the in a true sense would be like The Old Guard, Young Guard, etc.) does get that part right and is better than the "restore" under Autocratic govt. which allows you to take a veteran unit with say 2 survivors and restore it to full health (from seeming new recruits) with no reduction in ratings. So, that all said.... the replacement system needs to be tweaked. Anyway, I'm rambling.. sorry

wolfetone
25th May 2005, 22:47
I think I've mentioned this before... maybe I'm the only one.... but why can't you change unit names from Grenadiers1, etc? Just a small touch but if if you can alter Commander names why not units too?

kamikazi
25th May 2005, 23:05
As I have said before I feel the ships in this game really do need work. Having played a few more times lately ive noticed many unrealistic things, I will list a few:

1) The speeds of the ships are wrong, although a battleship is largest its proportions make it the fastest. The physics of a boat is that the longer a ship is the faster it goes, the sail surface-area is also important in determining a ships maximum speed using the wind, but the length is the main factor. The battleship is the longest in proportion to its width hence it being fastest. The Frigate is only very slightly shorter and narrower and of course lower due to the fact its only a 2 decker. The frigate also has large sails in proportion to its size just like the battleship, this means the physics of both battleship and Frigate are roughly the same which would mean roughly the same speeds. But the sloop is very small, not very long or wide, very low and has small sails. A sloop would be slowest of all the ships because doesnt have the momentum. It doesnt have large sails but in poportion to the boat itself they are fairly big, but although it is also fairly long and narrow its weight cancels out any bonuses it could have in speed because its so light, it simply defies physics for it to be the fastest ship. In WW2 ships were also designed based on width and length etc, believe it or not the fastest ships were aircraft carriers, this wasnt because of the engine power but because they are the longest, narrowest vessels, cruisers, frigates and battleships were also designed this way.

2) The wind direction and they way it pushes the ship also annoys me, It seems that the game is programmed so that having the wind coming directly from the stern gives you the most power, this is incorrect. If you think about it, on a large sailing vessel of this type and of this era, the sails are one in front of the other. This means that the sails further towards the bow are not getting any wind because all the sails towards the aft are getting the wind, this would mean less power due to less surface area. On a ship like this you get most power when the wind is coming in at an angle for example if you were standing at the stern (back) and you measured about 40-50 degrees from behind you towards the starboard or port side that would be the best wind direction. So basically the best way is to travel at an angle to the wind to get most speed.

3) The ships should also have guns in the officers quaters (stern) and bow chaser guns. The aim of these are simply to fend off the enemy or if in persuit you can attack the enemies rigging with the bow chaser guns. you would have about 2 chaser guns and 0 (not entirely sure about a sloops armament) stern cannons on a sloops. 2 chasers and 2 stern cannons on a Frigate and 4 stern and 4 chasers on a Battleship.

4) The damage inflicted on a ship and the sinking times should be altered aswell I feels. I think ships should sink very slowly, it was very rare for ships to even sink atall in real life ussually it was a fight to knock the enemy senseless until they had hardly any crew and they surrendered. I think ships that are bigger than those they ram should take less damage from hitting the enemy. I think when you fire at enemies rigging it should bring down masts etc. I think that in close range there should be a risk of rigging entanglement between ships. There should also be damage inflicted to rudders and more visible damage to the sides of ships ie holes. Also it would be good if fires were not as common and there is a very slight chance of explosions that could literally blow the ship away like a 1:200 chance of it. Ships would also sometimes partially sink but still be able to fight because it was just slight leakage, (of course they would be immobile).

5) I feel that in the campaign you should sometimes but rarely get American frigates sail over and have an attack on British Frigates etc. This did happen in real life but it tended to be attacks on lone ships for example a US frigate would never attack a battleship but it would stalk a frigate or sloop. the USS Constitution is an example of this.

Thats all for the moment, my typind hand is tired for the moment, I hope this is helpful. ;)

King Rich
26th May 2005, 11:14
Its really a question as to whether you want an historically accurate game or not. The tactics in Zulu only work if you can reload your rifle quickly. Perfectly possible with a breach loaders of that era (which if I recall correctly was the 1870's). Completely impractical in the era of muskets that took anything from 20 seconds to 1 minute to load depending on the competence of the troops. A more accurate idea, and quite fun to look at, would be the rolling volley: British line infantry would, after the initial one or two volleys, fire by platoon working from the edges in, giving a rippled or "rolling" volley. However, I would classify that as a purely "nice to have" compared to more fundamental issues.

I tend to agree that the range of artillery needs to be increased.

The Zulu wars was about 1830-1840, PLZ PLZ PLZ MAKE AN EXPANSION PACK DURING THIS ERA!!!

It would be a good idea to have upgraded weapons e.g. you start with (depending on your nationality) a low powered, not very long range rifle, this can be given to any men. e.g. if you have researched Black Watch you can equip them with the basic range of musket, then going up to Breach Loaded.

Any Ideas??

also the British 12 Pounder could fire anything up to 800m, depending on the length of the breach, whilst the British Howizter has alot less length of Breach and alot wider, thus meaning it can fire more devistating shots at closer ranges, even these however could fire up to 400m

charlesx
26th May 2005, 12:44
Maybe i am doing something wrong but it seems to take for ever to besiege, which i could live with, but whats the deal with the 300+ rebellions every second turn. Ive gone thru about 6 of them already and im only on 60%. Thats almost 2000 men, 3 times the size of austrias total army?

I want decisive battles, and then maybe a rebellion or two. But every other turn with a 5 unit army?

Kaizer
26th May 2005, 16:12
These are some things I would like to see in the update patch

1) Unlock the other countries, I play with all 4 “Great powers” but make the game a bit boring (many people already mention the same thing)
2) Can they fix the other countries not to be conquered so easily, after 10 turns, Great Britain has already conquered Spain, Portugal and Denmark, France has conquered Saxony and Hanover and Russia has conquer Sweden and Moldavia (btw I play with Austria), while I have not conquer anything.
If the other countries are more stronger the game will be more interesting.
3) Why all the computer countries have good relation between them, but I do not.
I tried through diplomacy but still nothing happened, even free a nation but still most them are against me. I prefer to be a balance between the countries.
4) The cost for creating army units is to be different between the “Great Powers”, right ? , but for all them the cost is the same, example the cost for building Austrian Musketeers is the same for Russia ,etc.
5) The morale sector, example I attack or defend with Musketeers against militia, this should effect the morale of the enemy and push them back/ make them retreat. (also mentioned by many people – is unrealistic to fight until the end)
6) Some of photos of the King or at least some more information about who is better to choose as my successor
7) When I conquer a country to have rebelions for some turns, is not realist to conquer a country and the people to accept that easily.
8) Make the quests to me more interesting, to gain prestige points when u achieve them. Half there are not worth it to collect them, example why to spend 4,000 population, 2000 golds and 2500 raw matterials just to have an advance militery academy, I can build it with lower cost.

Regards
Kaizer

Asper
26th May 2005, 17:27
Dido for Kaiser.

Shadowknight
26th May 2005, 18:09
i agree with kaizer, btw i don't think they will be reading these forums.

hopefully alot of things are sorted soon, next patch hopefully or expansion, or i wont bother buying expansions for Imperial Glory.

[J.E.v.O]
26th May 2005, 18:14
.
8) Make the quests to me more interesting, to gain prestige points when u achieve them. Half there are not worth it to collect them, example why to spend 4,000 population, 2000 golds and 2500 raw matterials just to have an advance militery academy, I can build it with lower cost.

Regards
Kaizer

if you have a big empire....and alot of capitols with military academies....than it's verry usefull to do that quest...because you get an advanced academy in all capitols.! ;)

or am I mistaken?

Kaizer
26th May 2005, 19:08
']if you have a big empire....and alot of capitols with military academies....than it's verry usefull to do that quest...because you get an advanced academy in all capitols.! ;)

or am I mistaken?
You are not mistaken mate, u have a point, but still even if u have more countries include in your empire, for strategy terms u are not going to collect that kind of quest because of two reasons :

1) If u accept the quest, and fix your military academies in your provinces, that means that u are going to build also army units from that province = foreign armies, right ?, what will happen if u losse the specific country = you losse the army u build and the money plus population u spend. (btw 9) I have not see any of the other Great Empires to free any country). Historical Example, For many years Austria and France paid smaller countries for their independence also to cause problems for the big Empires like Ottoman Empire ( Example Greek Revolution)

2) If u losse the country u build and lets say that the other Great Empire free the coutry, means that country will have the ability to make units like yours, plus because your diplomatic realation will be very low = WAR

I agree with Shadowknight, I do not think anyone from the developers will read all these things, but still is a possibility ta gain ideas from all the members here plus to make a good patch.

The two reaons I am going to buy any expansion of Imperial Glory are
1) To fix good patches for the game = good relation between company and purchaser = good game = good marketing
2) To see more of the other countries and have the ability to control them like Greece, Serbia, Netherlands etc

Regards
Kaizer

Shadowknight
26th May 2005, 22:59
i do have to say, i believe someone brought it up but, all the empires eg france, can takeover all those neutral nations aswell as spain very easily, i can say alot more things, but very tired :(

Neil S
27th May 2005, 10:58
Can I make a suggestion. :)

We seem to have lots of excellent ideas for improvements. However, some of them I think are unrealistic to expect the designers to accept at the moment (eg scrapping the economics system and rebuilding from scratch), some of them are more applicable for an expansion pack (eg unlocking more countries), and some add chrome but would not change the game.

Can I suggest classifying our suggestions into the following categories in descending order of priority:

1. Bug fixes - obviously the most important
2. Key improvements - a small number of essential improvements to allow the existing game to play better but which do not fundamentally change the nature of the game
3. Significant changes - significant changes to the mechanics or scope of the game
4. Nice to haves - things which do not change the game fundamentally but add game enhancing chrome

My own personal views are that:

Examples of 2. would include the ability to slow down battles, "active pause", improving the morale rules, improving the handling of ships in multi-vessel battles, and reducing the lethality of battles.

Examples of 3. would be adding further countries, unit types, fatigue rules etc

Examples of 4. would be adding drummers, bagpipes etc

I suggest that it is not unreasonable to request 1. and 2. as part of a patch. I suggest 3 and 4 would have to wait for an expansion pack.

Of course, if no-one from the designers is looking at this forum this is all academic !

Thoughts anyone?

colmde
27th May 2005, 11:11
In RTW, when the units are marching, you can press space and it displays the destination of all units... Such a feature would be nice in this game.

Neil S
27th May 2005, 13:40
ok fair enough, know it all, lol. Bet you don't know the rifle used though do you??? Do you agree with me about the cannons and do you also agree with me that it would be a good idea about the Expansion Pack???

The rifle used was the breach loading Martini-Henry. :D

I tend to agree that the cannon range could be a little longer, particularly for the heavier guns, but I know others disagree.

Not sure about adding Zulu's to the expansion pack idea. I would rather see the focus being on making the existing Napoleonic game better before we move on to other era's, but that's just my personal preference. Certainly, from my non-programmers view it seems perfectly feasible but you could end up with battlefields with a lot of dead Zulu's on it. I know Isandhlwana went the other way, but in most cases well trained rifle equiped soldiers will beat spears and shields. The difference in technology would mean very unbalanced battles: not my cup of tea. However, I suspect we may have to agree to disagree on this :)

Nastavnik
27th May 2005, 15:51
In RTW, when the units are marching, you can press space and it displays the destination of all units... Such a feature would be nice in this game.

I agree.
While its good that selected units keep their group formation after moving, when you have to break up the group in order to adapt to the enemy's position, it is very hard to correctly replace the units on the field: if I send some infantry to a new position and then select the cannons I have no way of easily sending them to the right place.
At present I have to send them all to the same position, and only when they are there I can micromanage their placements. And that's a lot more of clicking since there is no pause & command. And while I do this (15 seconds lets say to correctly place everyone and ready the cannons), since it is "real time", The enemy is charging my remaining troups and when I get back there to command, there is not much left to do except hope that my men will win.
Specially since battles go so fast, and there is no withdraw from melee (even for cavalry), accuratly placing troops before they engage is almost a thierd of all the orders you can give (with who and when to attack).

I think some indication of the actual destination of the troops (other than selecting them) would help a lot.

BMACTulsa
27th May 2005, 16:20
I have only played the game for about a day now, so I may be doing something wrong, but it seems to me that the tactical battles are basically speed driven. The current rate of movement allows for cavalry or even infantry units to engage each other before a proper linear line has been set. Basically, this makes the victor of the battle, the attacker. The one who has the most mobility and the one who can hit the enemy before he has a chance to form up wins. Battles are over before they begin. Historically, the defender held the advantage, but in this game, there is no time to set the defense.

With this in mind, there is no practical use for artillery. When you unlimber your guns to fight off an attacking enemy, the rate of movement beats the speed of the shot. Cavalry charges are unaffected by cannon fire, and almost always successful. At most, you get off two volleys before you are overrun.

- Artillery should be given a longer range. It should be lethal, and a high valued asset/target on the battlefield. It should be able to make use of grape and canister to defeat the direct assault.
- Howitzers should have a more lethal impact on infantry. Howitzers usually had exploding rounds that sometimes "airburst", causing numerous casualties to units in the area.

Again, there are three distinct unit categories in 18th/19th century warfare. Right now, you can win this game just using cavalry. Beef up the effectiveness of the other two, and make the defender a little stronger!

Thoughts?

kamikazi
27th May 2005, 19:35
I agree with BMACTulsa on cannons. I think the most important things to be adressed in a patch are bugs, a few of the suggestions like speed timers etc and everything ive listed about ships in another post, the ships really need Alot of work!

imported_mike_g
27th May 2005, 20:20
Hi Folks,
I've been collating the responses to this thread into a list to submit to the developers. First, I wanted to express my thanks to you all for your help and suggestions. Let's also five jaycw a hand for his looking after this thread too. I know that if you are experiencing a technical problem with the game, he (as well as our CS staff) are doing all they can to find solutions. Also, as I've been reading the feedback there are a few small things that leap out at me. First, those of you frustrated with the naval actions, I find that selecting auto-fire on all my ships (right click on the 'fire' icons) makes things a lot easier. Then, by placing my ships in line-ahead (pick a vessel to be your flag ship, then select the next ship in line, select the 'follow ship' icon, and then left click on the flagship. Repeat with each ship in line, marked to follow the ship ahead of it) I can exercise a fair degree of control over the action.

I will respond more fully to your suggestions when I know more.

eastcoasthandle
28th May 2005, 14:37
Cannon with grape and cannister fire

More buildings in battle to create a small town, not every battle was fought on Farm land.

Repair option to actually work for soliders. I have yet seen this work or become available. This should replentish lose troops within 3-5 turns

Captians and the such who gain experience should be able to have more tatics at his disposal.

Soilders who gain more experience should increase in accuracy, morale, etc

Elite schooling should be available at each capital you take control over, not just your home captial. It's a real pain to have to deliver elite troops from your home cap to the battle field 5-10 turns later.

On the map campaign when a country is siezed the map should alert you to this. Please, no more surprises

AI should be improved to provide a balanced unit. No more Captians of the 15 cannon squad! That's not only useless but would be better housed in the garrison as a defense not an offensive march towards the enemy!

We DO NOT NEED A SLIDER for this game, the men I control walk slow enough. It's the AI that needs to be slowed down! THE AI NOT ME!!!!
Also take note the AI usually start closer at strategic targets of interest then myself. But they do not take full advantage of it in some cases.

Custimized controls is required

Ability to load a previous saved game without the need to enter campaign mode

zizzenet
28th May 2005, 19:38
Hi everybody,

in my opinion, the battle AI is not so bad, as most player say, but it hardly needs some IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENTS. I write the "bugs" must be fixed (sorry, my english is not so good):

1. The AI always arrange his units very well, send some from them into buildings or onto the hills. But he can't use this advantages. When he wants to fight, all units come out from buildings, they leave the hills etc.

2. I attacked the AI in a castle. I used only my cannons from outside, i bombed the AI's units in the castle. They did nothing. I did not use any from my other units, i did not move into the castle, but i killed a lot of AI units with this method. Why AI does not move his units farther on when they are attacked? This is a bit stupid thing.

I hope, Pyro and Eidos read this forum, and they are planning one or more patches to improve this excellent game. In my opinion, this game requires a very good support to preserve it in our memory forever :))

Thanks your attention

GenMoore
28th May 2005, 19:46
Once your in a castle, then you are surrounded, so how is the AI to act any differant, try an open field area or farms, and you will see the AI react.

Iff you have them holed up in a castle, then you wiil win with cannon, but no fun, so whats the point. :confused:

kamikazi
28th May 2005, 22:37
Well I think standing your ground in cannon fire is simply a mixture of following orders, bravery and duty :)

Kaizer
28th May 2005, 23:06
These are some things I would like to see in the update patch

1) Unlock the other countries, I play with all 4 “Great powers” but make the game a bit boring (many people already mention the same thing)
2) Can they fix the other countries not to be conquered so easily, after 10 turns, Great Britain has already conquered Spain, Portugal and Denmark, France has conquered Saxony and Hanover and Russia has conquer Sweden and Moldavia (btw I play with Austria), while I have not conquer anything.
If the other countries are more stronger the game will be more interesting.
3) Why all the computer countries have good relation between them, but I do not.
I tried through diplomacy but still nothing happened, even free a nation but still most them are against me. I prefer to be a balance between the countries.
4) The cost for creating army units is to be different between the “Great Powers”, right ? , but for all them the cost is the same, example the cost for building Austrian Musketeers is the same for Russia ,etc.
5) The morale sector, example I attack or defend with Musketeers against militia, this should effect the morale of the enemy and push them back/ make them retreat. (also mentioned by many people – is unrealistic to fight until the end)
6) Some of photos of the King or at least some more information about who is better to choose as my successor
7) When I conquer a country to have rebelions for some turns, is not realist to conquer a country and the people to accept that easily.
8) Make the quests to me more interesting, to gain prestige points when u achieve them. Half there are not worth it to collect them, example why to spend 4,000 population, 2000 golds and 2500 raw matterials just to have an advance militery academy, I can build it with lower cost.

Regards
Kaizer

After playing mmore days of this game I would like to add some more things that I would like to see in the update patch:

1) Fix the option of the loan soldiers : Example I play with Austria and I loan 3 Hussar and 3 Imperial Units to Moldavia just to secure their freedom from the Russia, After 5 turns Moldavia was Annexed by France but my Units did not return to me, again after 2 turns there was a War btwn me and France, so the result was in the battle to Moldavia, to fight against my own loaned army - IS THAT LOGICAL ???? :mad:
2) Make the countries to be more aggesive when there is a war, I can not understand why, example France declare war to me, to wait 5 turns until they attack in a province where I have just one army unit
3) Please Fix the diplomacy I am tired to spend 25000 gold for 5000 wood when the cost is about 12000, and this is happened also with countries with 95 behaviour to me.
4) Please fix an editor where we can make changes for the game ( I know that many would not like that) but if we had an editor (like in TCM editor, i.e. to import countries, change the gold when we start the game,to be able even to insert new flags or to change the colour of our armies).

Regards
Kaizer

Sieur_Drewry
29th May 2005, 10:37
basically everything allready mentioned I want included.

-Morale
-Officers (and for multiplayer you should get to choose officers and how many) Officers should be able to rally troops that are fleeing.
-A speed slider for single player
-Campaign needs more control over officers. I want to be able to feel like each officer is a human. Each officers has skills and abilities that aide him in battle. Whenever they level up you should be able to choose these abilities. Maybe even add a 5th rank called Emperer, an officer gets so good it takes over the country or at least has the option to. If you are a monarchy you should be able to see your family tree. Another improvement would be to speed up the turns, like maybe have an option to not see their movements of armies (like in Civilization where you can do things like that.) Maybe have an option to only show countries armies move if it is in your own territories.
I think if this game was meant to be a mostly Single Player game, then the campaign wil need more work to have fun. As you should be able to go on until 1880 and have new heirs take over your country, sort of like in RTW where your ruler can go into battle, and you can see their sons and they go into battle.

Element-UK
29th May 2005, 11:11
I really miss pressing the space bar to see where all my troops have been ordered to. Lining all the troops up into a decent formation is trickier than it should be because you cant see where the unit next to it is going to end up. The accuracy of Artillery is fine at the moment as it makes up for the lack of range. Protecting Arty is very difficult because of their rifle-like range. I love the building occupation and am very pleased with the game. Just a few basic tweaks that the TW series found out that you cannot live without in a game like this. Overall vg.

Gelatinous Cube
29th May 2005, 11:44
Uh.. unless I've got a different copy than you, you can see where everyone's headed. Just click on a unit, and a little flag will appear where they've been ordered to go.

If you mean every single little individual soldier, well, that's just being anal.

lawsie
29th May 2005, 14:02
stick in a multiplayer campaign mode. the battles are just not enough. it would be great if there was a multiplayer campaign mode. anyone else agree?

Gelatinous Cube
29th May 2005, 14:36
stick in a multiplayer campaign mode. the battles are just not enough. it would be great if there was a multiplayer campaign mode. anyone else agree?

I might actually play multiplayer if this were the case. Such a feature might draw intelligent competition, instead of l33t d00d3rs. :rolleyes:

Shaunie
29th May 2005, 18:36
Well, I've just spent a year and a day reading up on this thread, as I expect most users new to the forum have!

The two things which stick out a mile for a patch release are:
1. A variable battle speed.
2. The ability to issue commands whilst paused.

What I don't understand is, the developers must have played AOE, TW etc... and realised the benifits of these features. So either they've deliberately been left out, or time constraints on release stopped their inclusion. You can't tell me no one ever mentioned it!

But my question is... the two most common requests are clear - is it possible for these two features to be included via a patch, and is a patch planned?

I await your answer Eidos!

Shaunie

zizzenet
29th May 2005, 20:34
PLease, improve the Peace Treaty dialog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When the computer takes his moves, and pops up a dialog saying that XY empire offers me a Peace Treaty, and i choose "Accept", maybe i will loose some regions which this empire sieged, but i forgot it.

So, add to the dialog a list of the regions which will be annected by this empire if i choose accept the Peace Treaty.

ptan54
29th May 2005, 21:08
Totally agree with the peace treaty issue. Should be a list of what areas you will gain/lose.

The system is rather straitjacketed though. I think there should be a "status quo ante" option, neither side gains/loses territory but the proposer must pay a monetary indemnity. Stupid to assume that there is no negotiation whatsoever about transfer of territories just because they happen to be under foreign occupation.

Kidshocker
29th May 2005, 21:12
I think Bavaria should be in the game other then Saxony. Bavaria was practically the only semi-strong ally France had after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire.

LiQuiD_PaRaDoX
30th May 2005, 04:21
Could you guys add in a command to order the troops "forward"
like in Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

If you had all your troops arranged in the way you want them to be... you should just be able to highlight them all and press something like the 'up arrow' for everyone to move forward. That way they'll all stay at the same formation and just 'advance'

Also... like everyone has said... MORALE is definately needed.

cutter3377
30th May 2005, 05:14
I think the only thing this game needs is pause/command option ,speed slider and thats it.I must be the only one that hates morale in the game so maybe that should be another option ,to be able to switch it on or off or control the degree of morale .Personally it annoys me when i order units and they keep running away like frightened rabbits,and yes i know this is more realistic but it doesnt really bother me.That was one thing i absolutely hated about medieval total war ,if my infantry were attacked by cavalry they kept running away.

zizzenet
30th May 2005, 09:39
I think the only thing this game needs is pause/command option ,speed slider and thats it.I must be the only one that hates morale in the game so maybe that should be another option ,to be able to switch it on or off or control the degree of morale .Personally it annoys me when i order units and they keep running away like frightened rabbits,and yes i know this is more realistic but it doesnt really bother me.That was one thing i absolutely hated about medieval total war ,if my infantry were attacked by cavalry they kept running away.

Yeah, that's right. OK, the fact of the morale is important, but in the RTW the morale can destroye the playability of the game (and much other things, too).
But, in my opininon, the morale is not missing absolutely from the game. Yes, units can run away from combat and cannot be controlled for some moments. That's more symphatetic and manageable for me. And there is an other good factor, the "fatigue" (the blue indicator on the unit's card). It descrease when the unit is running or charging. So, once my unit lost this factor, and they ended up fighting. The enemy just killed him easily and quasi completely.

titus the flayer
30th May 2005, 11:47
Haha, alot for the designers to read in here :p I'd just like to make the humble suggestion of including a multiplayer campaign- shouldn't be to difficult right?

That is one of the greatest mistakes for all the total war series and now this game :( Hope you can fix it and i'd like to hear your thoughts on this!

Thanks!!!

[BlackBirdy]
30th May 2005, 14:29
Good news. Some of the issues present in the demo were fixed in the final version.


']

TROOP MOVES WITHOUT ORDER :mad:
Formation in square will move for no reason sometimes.
With the new control (ctrl+alt+h), troops don’t move anymore. :) It will be a good idea to add this control in user interface.



SQUARED FORMATION INEFFICIENT :mad:
Enemy will sometimes manage to go through the square with no problem.
Enemy won’t manage to go through the square but retreats every time. This is more coherent. :)



Against cannons protected by squared infantry, enemy infantry conducted by A.I. will try to engage a hand-to-hand combat with the cannons.
After several unsuccessful attempts to pass the deadly squared formation, enemy infantry SHOULD adopt the line formation for a range attack.
At least, at hard level, enemy infantry will adopt the line formation to engage a range attack instead of rushing and being crushed by the squared formations. The A.I. surprise me in good. :)




I would like to see in the future patch:

- A time slider. Not only to slow down but also to speed up the battles.

- The red flag indicating the location of troops is nice but not really efficient. Indeed, the red flag appears only when the troop is selected, so if I select another troop, the red flag disappears, so useless to place correctly the second troop. The system used in RTW and also in Praetorians is not good enough?

- Is there any signal when a troop is attacked by a range attack? It will be nice to know that.

- It will be nice also for the quick battles to have the possibility to save the set up of the battle in order to avoid every time the creation of the armies.

- Little request: during the presentation of the battles, there are always white screens that appear brutally and make me blind every time. Can we skip them? but I still want to know the description of the battles.

zizzenet
30th May 2005, 20:53
AI units always leave the captured buildings, they always come out. No, this is very stupid thing. My last battle was a cabaret. The AI captured both buildings on teh battlefield. But when i was close to him, all of his units came out from buildings. If AI leave them inside, he wins the battle easily. But he came out, so i won the battle easily. Stop it, please. This is very annoying.

(type name here)
30th May 2005, 21:23
have you tried medium or hard?

KabeDerlin
31st May 2005, 05:06
On another note I agree with all the fixes I've heard so far but I'd also like to mention another problem i have with the game.

The computer never defends Or at least I've never seen them defend. I mean they linger around the objectives long enough to get ready and then they push forward. This makes it terribly easy for the human player because all one really has to do to win the battle is to line up and wait for your enemy to waltz up. In this era a defensive position is powerful, and apparently the game designers meant for the attacker to have the disadvantage, the programming just doesn't follow through. When I'm attacking Brandenburg palace I don't expect the enemy to leave the excellent defense of the palace and waltz right up to my men. This is rediculous. Make it so the computer is competent enough to defend when it's the defender and not just attack all the time

Other than that, I love this game. It looks brilliant I'm just dissapointed that some things weren't added. This game will surely be a classic if some minor changes were made, and it will sadden me if the creators of IG do the same things the creators of Civilization III did, and just not even bother to fix the things that should be fixed.

zizzenet
31st May 2005, 08:08
have you tried medium or hard?
Why, is the AI more clever on these levels? Do his units stay in the buildings?

zizzenet
31st May 2005, 08:22
Please, make the game more informative! Here are must important things must be added to the game, in my opinion:

1. Add a list onto the Peace Treaty dialog, which list contains the regions will be annected, if i accept this offer. I wrote about it earlier, too.

2. Add a few description about the government types onto the governemnt-choosing dialog. I don't know by heart the consequences of all government types.

3. MORE TOOLTIPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:
a) add tooltips to the government icons (i can't learn all of the pictograms);
b) add tooltips to Country Flags by all of the dialogs (sometimes i forget some smaller emipre's flag)
c) ADD TOOLTIP TO THE REGIONS/EMPIRES. I want to know the name of the region, when i move the mouse over it. This tooltip must contain at least:
- the name of the region,
- the name of the empire, who ones it,
- the sympathy rates.
It is a bit circumstantial always to rightclick to open a "showmodal" window and close it.
d) Add tooltips to the units card, too.

Captain.Crunch
31st May 2005, 08:23
KabeDerlin I stick by what I say.

If you change this game too much to what it already is your going to loose a lot of realism. You say that the enemy just charges you... well believe it or not but a lot of these battles where fought like that. Just about ever other civilization other then GB and France where uncivilized and basically just charged.

Anyway the good news is that with a patch if one is released one does not have to actually patch/update there game if one does not like what it does to there game……. I have a feeling that realism will be lost with a patch I have seen it happen many a time before because to many people have too many ideas and it is hell for the game dev team to try and take all these ideas into consideration and please everyone. And when they try and please everyone they stuff the game because you just can’t please everyone.

If you want to bring a patch out do so to fix any bugs or pauses in the game try not to change it so much because it is fantastic the way it is.
;)

Gelatinous Cube
31st May 2005, 09:12
The enemy will defend on Medium and Hard difficulties. I'm playing a game as Hard right now, and it's quite tough.

One thing i'd like to see is a solution to the general choppyness on the campaign map. For example: I had to turn off Message Animations, because they were choppy. And sometimes it'll slow down to 3 or 4 fps for no discernable reason.

Element-UK
1st Jun 2005, 00:19
I noticed that Light Inf ' Tire ' at the same rate of Line and Grenadier's etc ! Along with Jagers the Light's should tire much slower......Then maybe we will see their true worth as they can outrun the enemy Line units to the Defensive locations ! They still need to be made in 1 turn imo due to the bad melee skill. I have noticed as well that the Light's and Rifle Units don't seem to fight any better when in Forests ! Surely they should get a further bonus to melee vs Cav and the Cav should get a penalty. Maybe they do ? but it is not noticeable. Not just the Armour bonus. Agree that Horse Arty should move faster. More fences on the battlefields may add some more tactics and fun, especially if they wrap some fields edges totally with gates etc.

You should not be able to Repair a ship and let it re-sail in the same month. Maybe the damage done could change how long it takes to repair ? Say 1 month for each 25% ?

PS: No G.Cube im NOT being anal ! If you play the TW games you see their formations lines !! NOT merely their centre man. This is ok if moving grouped unit's but alot of the time you want to split a unit off and reface him or make a move to flank etc. It's good to see the 'complete' finished positions AND facing's of all your unit's.

Englaender91
1st Jun 2005, 09:24
I'm very sorry if some of these have been posted before. I simply don't have the time at the moment to read the entire thread. But I wanted to give my two cents' worth for the notice (hopefully) of the developers anyway :)

- lack of speed slider - it can take ages for your troops to cross the
battlefield
- actual combat needs slowing down
- no morale element (huh?!) - your troops fight to the last man and don't rout
- there should be a general/drummer/standard bearer present on the
battlefield. It should be possible to strike at him and damage morale (as in RTW)
- there seems to be no combat/range bonus from using the high ground (huh?!) for your infantry/artillery
- as far as I can see you can't see what troops you have loaded into a ship, meaning relying on memory (or guesswork) - you can only see there are troops - the commanding officer icon - but not which ones they are.
- the interface for moving troops around the campaign map and for building regiments is needlessly complex and very clunky (horrible, in fact) - you can't drag and highlight, can only move one piece at a time, piece movement is constrained terribly if you're dealing with a small province on the map. Plus you can only open one information window at a time. It makes it unwieldy and slow to use.
- why only 3 regiments (non-garrisoned) per province??
- only one battlefield per province (how dull! - therefore totally different to RTW, where you get a different battlefield per square on the map) - you can find yourself having to repeatedly attack or defend the same spot multiple times. For example, as Prussia, I beat the British defenders of the Tower of London. You would then think I had captured the building, having killed off its defenders. Wouldn't *I* now be playing as the defenders? But no, a few turns later, the Brits somehow assembled a new defence force for England, magically transported them into the Tower and I found myself again attacking the Tower, even though I had obviously won it a few turns before. The same thing happened a third time. WTF???!!! This is obviously an insane situation. I find this the WORST thing about IG.
- there seems to be no way of knowing how many troops you have to keep in a province you're subjugating in order prevent a rebellion. It would be nice to know what the percentage likelihood of a rebellion is, as in RTW.
- it would be helpful if a bubble message appeared telling you why you
cannot land your men in a particular province from a ship

Cheers, Englaender

Nastavnik
1st Jun 2005, 09:42
- only one battlefield per province (how dull! - therefore totally different to RTW, where you get a different battlefield per square on the map) - you can find yourself having to repeatedly attack or defend the same spot multiple times. For example, as Prussia, I beat the British defenders of the Tower of London. You would then think I had captured the building, having killed off its defenders. Wouldn't *I* now be playing as the defenders? But no, a few turns later, the Brits somehow assembled a new defence force for England, magically transported them into the Tower and I found myself again attacking the Tower, even though I had obviously won it a few turns before. The same thing happened a third time. WTF???!!! This is obviously an insane situation. I find this the WORST thing about IG.
- there seems to be no way of knowing how many troops you have to keep in a province you're subjugating in order prevent a rebellion. It would be nice to know what the percentage likelihood of a rebellion is, as in RTW.
- it would be helpful if a bubble message appeared telling you why you
cannot land your men in a particular province from a ship

Cheers, Englaender

I agree with most of the points but I do specially and fully agree with these! Afetr 5 battles of piedmon, I'm willing to give it up to any one who wants it!
The rebellion thing would be very nice indeed !

zizzenet
1st Jun 2005, 14:24
So, as i see, the battles are independent from the seasons, the weather is hardcoded to each battlefield. No problem, but it would be a new strategy level to plan, when is more worth to fight. Oh, and this could give more variety to all battlefields, too.

wolfetone
1st Jun 2005, 17:54
There are 2 main points that people belittling the idea of a pause/speed slider seem to make

1. If you don't want to rush around clicking all the time and (therefore missing the actual battle development) you are somehow old and should go back to playing checkers or something like that.

2. It would ruin the feel or realism of the game.

PS Again, my little disclaimer: I love the game and the concept. However, it's beginning to get a little linear and boring (or maybe it's just me getting my life back :) There are so many wonderful parts to this game. I hope Pyro takes some of the suggestions to heart and opens up the game to the non arcade crowd. Interesting observation made by someone earlier, that the game is marketed to appeal to the military history crowd but is currently configured to the arcaders. Hmmmm

Element-UK
1st Jun 2005, 18:54
Why can you NOT loan troops to a Nation who cannot make that troop type ? I don't see why they would have to at all ?

In Naval Combat I would like to see an option for letting the AI control ships that are just too much or to many to handle without them smashing into each other whilst your not watching them. I would like to pull the camera out alot more to give a total ariel view as an option.

Bob_hoesmith
1st Jun 2005, 21:34
Prehaps make rifle cavalry able too shoot while moving. I had a unit of these fellas against a few infantry blocks, won with hit and run but I lost too many men while stnding still and forming into a nice line execution squad manner. I'ts cool to finish them off like that but just weird when youre outnumbered three to one. Shooting while moving!!!!

Woogie14
1st Jun 2005, 22:22
I think that weather should effect the battlefield and campaign game. That is how Napoleon lost in Russia.....Attritian and the winter. Change it to where during the winter months you require a greater amount of resources to keep your troops abroad. Also slow movement if rain or snow is affecting the battlefield. Just a suggestion. Maybe even add a morale factor (troop happiness) that is affected by weather, political climate, win/losses, and troop quality. That could incorporate desertions and willingness to fight. Militia were less willing to fight then grenadier units etc....

Beaglepack
2nd Jun 2005, 00:25
"If Intel Corp. can't find a way to go around their intel integrated chipsets. we could get the option to disable the feature in which we can't play the game while still having the same quality or less."

Please give us some kind of fix so we can play on our laptops. I'm playing on my desktop now, but I really need to be able to play on my laptop. I'm recovering from a broken back, and about to go in for my second major back surgery. It's really important for me to be able to use my laptop, because I can't sit up at a desk for more than a few minutes at a time.

Fixing the game so we can use laptops will make the game handicap accessible! That's important for a lot of people, not just me.

Captain.Crunch
2nd Jun 2005, 03:59
Prehaps make rifle cavalry able too shoot while moving. I had a unit of these fellas against a few infantry blocks, won with hit and run but I lost too many men while stnding still and forming into a nice line execution squad manner. I'ts cool to finish them off like that but just weird when youre outnumbered three to one. Shooting while moving!!!!


I like that idea the Persians used to do that on there horses and they looked mean ..... :D charging scary stuff.

Kaizer
2nd Jun 2005, 06:59
I agree with Beaglepack, it is essential for people who are using laptops to modify the game to work 100% for laptops.

I pay 29.99, like many other around here and I aspect the game to work correctly as long as I have the requirements the game needs, but now I have to wait when Omega will release the CAT 5.5 in order to play the game without problems. :mad:

I have a laptop because of my job, I can not change to desktop, because the game does not design basic for laptops, while I have the requirements.
Is not logical.

And I can not I undersand why ATI does not make the CAT 5.5 frivers also for laptops.

StudUK
2nd Jun 2005, 12:25
allow one to customise Key assignments!!!!

Coax74
2nd Jun 2005, 17:11
My only suggestion is this:

When helping to lift a siege on an Allied country, your diplomacy rating should rise, even minutely, in your favor. After all, you're helping them out by sacrificing soldiers to save their capitol right?

Case in point, I was playing Russia and had a Defensive Alliance with Denmark (and others). France invades Denmark and Denmark requests help. My forces storm in from Sweden, demolish the French in Norway, then engage in bloody fighting that lasted for several months in Denmark. Eventually we lifted the siege and France was sent packing. But what were my rewards for helping with the defense of Denmark? Not even a "Thank You."

Even a polite script would be nice:

"Denmark thanks you profusely for helping to defend their capitol. Sympathy between your two nations rises."

wolfetone
2nd Jun 2005, 17:42
My only suggestion is this:

When helping to lift a siege on an Allied country, your diplomacy rating should rise, even minutely, in your favor. After all, you're helping them out by sacrificing soldiers to save their capitol right?

Case in point, I was playing Russia and had a Defensive Alliance with Denmark (and others). France invades Denmark and Denmark requests help. My forces storm in from Sweden, demolish the French in Norway, then engage in bloody fighting that lasted for several months in Denmark. Eventually we lifted the siege and France was sent packing. But what were my rewards for helping with the defense of Denmark? Not even a "Thank You."

Even a polite script would be nice:

"Denmark thanks you profusely for helping to defend their capitol. Sympathy between your two nations rises."

What's worse... when you expel the invader, and on the next turn they're diplomatically annexed by the Austrians.

wolfetone
2nd Jun 2005, 17:46
In re to diplomacy... there needs to be some WAY to sabotage your enemies in the game.. currently (unless I've missed something) there is no way to do so now.

Coax74
2nd Jun 2005, 18:00
In re to diplomacy... there needs to be some WAY to sabotage your enemies in the game.. currently (unless I've missed something) there is no way to do so now.

Hey wolfetone! I've discovered in the Third Era of the Absolute Monarchy Research Tree that there are options to build and finance revolts in occupied nations. For example, if you are Britain and France controls say, Morocco, you can "build" a peasant revolt in Morocco. I've tried this several times though and it seems that the enemy troops garrisoned in the country can quell the revolts pretty quickly. There is also an option to build counter espionage cells that will let you know if an enemy is building the same thing in one of your countries.

This is the only thing I've seen where you can sabotage your enemy diplomatically (unless I've missed something as well).

wolfetone
2nd Jun 2005, 19:48
Hey wolfetone! I've discovered in the Third Era of the Absolute Monarchy Research Tree that there are options to build and finance revolts in occupied nations. For example, if you are Britain and France controls say, Morocco, you can "build" a peasant revolt in Morocco. I've tried this several times though and it seems that the enemy troops garrisoned in the country can quell the revolts pretty quickly. There is also an option to build counter espionage cells that will let you know if an enemy is building the same thing in one of your countries.

This is the only thing I've seen where you can sabotage your enemy diplomatically (unless I've missed something as well).


Oh, I got that too.. but I was hoping for something else. You know, some feature that you could actively use to lower an opponent's Relationship or activity in another country. I'm mainly thinking about ways to keep neutrals from diplomatically getting gobbled up by other powers. Uh-oh, I'm about to go back into my rant again. :) Besides, the more I look at it the more I don't like the realtionship rating system as it stands now... I mean France, England and Austria (example) all having 90% approval ratings with the same country? One would think that if one power gained such ascendency in a neutral country that other nations would see a drop in the "prestige', etc. that they had in the same country. That is, one's gain is another's loss. But I'm nitpicking so...

RSMHarper
2nd Jun 2005, 23:33
Ok, ok I know I'm flogging a dead horse here, but the unit speed does seem a little fast. And a pause and command function would add a lot to this game. I can win battles consistantly, but it would be much easier and more realistic feeling if I could pause and command or iff the units were slowed down some. I know that charging artillary positions would not be as easy as this game makes it out to be.

Don't get me wrong. I love the game. I have been able to see first hand the effects of some of the tactics of the era. Nothing like setting up good enfilading fire on a castle gate and watching the enemy be slaughtered wholesale. I love watching my cavalry destroy line formations and arty. It is just a fun game If you know anything about the strategies and tactics of the time. I can see how it could be very frustrating for casual RTS fans though.

RSMHarper
2nd Jun 2005, 23:38
I noticed during the naval battles that the wind indicator is only on the mini map. I think the mini map is kind of useless and in the way so I like to close it, but then I have no idea which way the wind is blowing. If this could be moved to the bottom of the screen it would help a lot.

Captain.Crunch
3rd Jun 2005, 00:00
You really don't think it's a little fast in combat? I know that it seems too slow when trying to cross the whole field, but... I don't know maybe your right. Maybe it's just that arty does not seem to fire fast enough or maybe they are not using canister. maybe if they added the option to choose your ammo for artillery. The pause and control just seems like it would let me orcestrate my battles better. I like to have my cav charging their artillery at the same time my guns open up and my infantry charges. Kinda hard to pull that of as it is.


I like the idea of :
maybe if they added the option to choose your ammo for artillery!! thats a good idea! because there is all sorts of ammo for different situations. Grape shot is a beautiful thing it can mow down men.

LionElJonson
3rd Jun 2005, 01:13
Here is what I would like to see:

-except for fortifications and urban environments, knock off the melee. I'm not playing a pre-gunpowder game here. A bayonet charge generally came after a prolonged series of volleys whereupon the wavering line fell back or fled when the other side began to slowly advance. Even the vaunted British charges broke and then saw the French fleeing or falling back, not being skewered. Medical records showed that most wounds came from artillery and then muskets. Very little bayonet wounds except for the afterforementioned urban environments.



I agree 250% with this!!! I love this era of history because of the massed troops firing volleys at each other...if i wanted to play a game where melee was the order of the day i'd play MTW or RTW. I BEG YOU!! PLEASE FIX THIS!

emperorunderdog
3rd Jun 2005, 03:00
Imperial Glory is a good game with the potential to be an exceptional game... however, there are a handful of areas that demand improvement for this game to achieve greatness and have the staying power of the Total War Games (to which it is often compared... overall the "campaign" element is better than Rome Total War, but the combat element, although very good, could be so much more... if:

Patch Suggestions for Combat Element:

1) This game must have a much better morale element applied to it.
2) Commanders (captains, colonels, generals etc.) should have a ranking and attributes that give his troops bonuses and handicaps.
3) Fortifications! Other than cramming a unit into a shack... although this was a great addition to the game.
4) Optional use of time limit... personally, I think it doesn't belong, except in historical battles, or possibly in select situations during the game... maybe sieges because the effects of siege can ruin both attacker and defender.
5) Weather (temperature and precipitation), seasons, and terrain should figure prominently in the game To my knowledge it doesn't affect the game at all. Napoleon lost 500,000 troops when he invaded Russia.
6) Night Battles with applicable bonuses and minuses affecting troops.
7) Cannon ranges seem way off across the board
8) All units ranged attack units melee too quickly/easily
9) Militia should have ranged attacks as well... most militia did have ranged attack capability. Possible values... Melee=25 Ranged=20 with lower morale (once there is morale) to seperate them from veteren trrops. Too ofen I will lose more than half a line infantry unit to a militia charge, despite getting off two volleys... militia are generally too strong, although, elite militia should be an option, but very expensive and scarce.
10) Drum and fife corps. Trumpet calls for calvary charges and retreats.
11) too much to suggest pistols too for some units... more effective for close range melees.
12) Map size increased on land and either multiplied by 10 at sea, or eliminated altogether for naval battles.
13) Better Camera!!! Rome Total War's Camera is the best.
14) "Pause Game while I plan my strategy feature."
I know there is an automatic attack feature, but there is way too much going on at once to effectively manage your troops... so... let us pause the game, instruct our troops, and watch history unfold instead of playing... Clickorama.
15) Speed slider... sometimes we don't have 15 mnutes to kill just to position troops.
16) Troop size. Can't the units sizes be made optional the way Rome Total War's is. A major battle involving 800 troops seems weak when it really should be at least 10 times that number.
17) Combat AI needs a good tweaking.
18) Needs more historical battles (at least 24) and historical campagins... (play as Napoleon, Wellington etc)




Campagin Element
1) I love the research element, but there should be more choice for direction. i.e. you eventually have to research everything to make it past an era. In the long run it doesn't matter if one focuses on military power or trade first... eventually all must be researched equally.
2) The United States added as a power... we did defeat Great Britan in two wars within a 30 year period.
3) Commercial Trade Bugs. It seems that it is almost randomly determined at times... and it is unfair when you are approched by several nations every turn to buy resources or food that will almost wipe you out of gold, when you don't need them anyway. I don't think relations should be reduced as easily as they are when I am forced to buy stuff I don't need, just to keep from going to war.
4) Possibly more leader options... law, religion, mercantilism versus free trade etc. More quests. research options... weapons technologies especially.
5) Balanced, random catastrophes, natural disasters, disease, extreme weather conditions etc.
6) Rome/Papal States should play a much more important role in politics than it does. Troops should never take more than one turn to be produced.
7) Better way to heal units

Overall, I would give this game an 8.4 out of 10, with the potential to score near a perfect ten if this game is patched up correctly. In reality most of us who own this game, probably own Rome: Total War, yet as much as I want to play Imperial Glory, it is hard to do so because overall, it isn't as strong as RTW, although, it clearlu has the potential to be as strong as RTW, or even the best strategy game ever. I love Imperial Glory, please fix it so it can be what it should be... possibly the best PC strategy game ever.

Thanks for listening!

Isledall
3rd Jun 2005, 11:33
would like a even harder setting then hard.. as it is still too easy

Captain.Crunch
3rd Jun 2005, 11:52
would like a even harder setting then hard.. as it is still too easy
:eek: if you want harder try someone in multiplayer!

Element-UK
3rd Jun 2005, 14:07
Defenders are leaving building's when there is no artillery to worry about !

YaquiKnow
3rd Jun 2005, 20:33
I haven't read all nine pages, so if these are not unique I apologize. I would like to see:

1.) Customizable keys - I would like to use keys at times to zoom in and out(and other options, not just camera). As I play everything with my mouse on my left side, default keys are not always optimized for left handers.

2.) Oblique movment key - while micromanaging several units, I would like to be able to hit one key and have a particular unit make a left or right oblique by hitting a key. Fredrick used obliques often and they were almost as powerful as enfilade :)

Queeg
3rd Jun 2005, 22:23
In the hope of avoiding knee-jerk reactions, I've waited until playing through a complete campaign before posting in this thread.

While there are many good suggestions here, there's really only one thing that comes close to a game killer for me - the speed of the tactical battles. Not unit movement speed; I've grown accustomed to that. Rather, it's how quickly the combat is resolved after the shooting starts. Battles last seconds, not minutes, and that's way too fast.

Perhaps weapons are too powerful and tweaking them downward across the board would increase survivability and prolong battles. It would be nice to know how to mod such things.

And, one other, related gripe: The mechanic by which the enemy retreats - the action freezes and a panel pops up annoucing that the enemy has decided to retreat - is too sterile and anticlimactic. Better if the enemy turned tail and ran - at least then I could enjoy watching them flee and perhaps pursue them for a bit.

Black Guard
4th Jun 2005, 02:56
First of all i want to point out that i love this game and havent stoped playing it since i got it. Following are a few personal sugestions on what i think would improve this game for me.

1, A lower movement speed for troops, i love the real time movement without the pause but unlike the computer i cannot issue orders to my men as fast as it can, a slower movement will alow me time to see the enemy movements and respond as i see fit.

2, More controll over my troops, this has a few sugestions below
(A) Adding a hold ground button which stops troops from breaking line to face nearby enemy.
(B) A skirmish button for light inf. where they adopt a dispersed formation to screen freindly toops, which gives them increased def. from artillary and musket fire and reduced defence aginst cave and hand to hand fighting while in this formation. This button also sets them to try and avoid contact with the enemy.
(c) Adding a dimount button for dragoons to allow them to fight on foot as light inf. a tactic that was often used in this era. ie. take that position and hold it untill relived, horse are not much use in a town, but they can get their quickly and try to hold it while your slower troops arive.
(D) Adding a fire at will option for cannon which alows them to begin firing on any enemy troops that come within range without beig given specific orders to do so, ( just as the infantry do when the enemy are within musket and rifle range ) at said troops and will also stop fireing when enemy troops are engaged in hand to hand with freindlys, and choose another eligable target.

3, Reduced accuracy for all troops except artillary which seem to be fine, except for maybe increasing their range, however if the slower movement speed is introduced this will not be needed. However the mustket fire seems to be a little too accurate, troops of that era had a tendancy to face each other and fire volly after volly until one side or the other backed off and withdrew. or one side decided to finaly see them off with a good old fashoned bayonet charge.

4, Their has got to be a morale, this fighting to the last man just dident happen. except in verry rear occasions from top grade troops.

5, And finaly the option, in the options menu to allow commanders to have more troops under their controll, this will cater for the players who want larger battles. by ajusting this captins say for example could have 4 or 5 units under their controll as oposed to the 3 in the game as it stands. and i dont think this would be hard to implement into the game.

I can't coment on naval battles as this side of the game dosent apeal to me personaly, so i will leave this to the naval commanders out their.

i apologise if seem to have droned on a little here, but these improvement (not complaints ) would in my view make this game even more exciting for me to play, if anyone has a point of view on what i have mentioned above i would love to here them.

Black Guard
4th Jun 2005, 03:58
[QUOTE=Bob_hoesmith]Prehaps make rifle cavalry able too shoot while moving. I had a unit of these fellas against a few infantry blocks, won with hit and run but I lost too many men while stnding still and forming into a nice line execution squad manner. I'ts cool to finish them off like that but just weird when youre outnumbered three to one. Shooting while moving!!!![/QUOTE
If implemented i hope it is with the correct penelties for doing so.

caffe
4th Jun 2005, 05:48
The graphics on this game are superb.. and I also like the strategy side.. however the actual combat system needs some work.. here are my suggestions..

A. Morale.. fighting to the death is silly.. please add some type of morale modifier to the game..

B. Pause.. give players time to respond to what is happening in game.. this is really needed during large battles

C. Modability (probably not a real word).. but.. please give us access to the file for unit statistics.. I believe this is ModeloCombate.dt.. no one seems to have figured out how to open it and it would greatly benefit all.. allowing each user to customize the game to thier own taste.. (ie firearm ranges.. melee combat ratings.. size of units.. etc..) This would increase replay value of game and could even lead to a larger audience..

D. Provinces.. please add more provinces.. once you get to the fun part of the game "late 2nd and 3rd era".. there's really not much left to conquer..

E. Units.. add more unit models to give some variation instead of retexturing the same models.. (Polish Infntry with Czpa cap.. Austrian Infantry with thier well known headgear.. Chasseurs.. Cossacks that look more like Cossacks)

Again.. the graphics are excellent.. maps look great.. love idea of objectives (maybe expand that idea a bit).. lots of nations = good.. but the battles themselves need work.. fix those things and this game could be a contender with the Total War series.. ;)

KiloAlpha4
4th Jun 2005, 09:41
I thought after laying and before coming here ther would be a lot of complaints but i couldn't read throught them all there is just to many besides that's the dev's job. Any way, personally here is what I would like:

make building upgrades and buildings cheaper. Buildings are far to expensive versus your earning potential and resources. It takes me until 1860 or so to fully upgrade tech and have any decent amount of buildings for only 13 territories or so as russia. This is rediculously slow.

stickyness in combat start mode and sometimes crash..this is a definate game engine issue.

unique units per country.. I only noticed right now britian having the rocket cannon thing. others are "matched" units almost exactly.

For the love of god elite foundry at every city center captured ! only having it in your capitol or start country as a build option is stupid and quite annoying.(horse 12 pounder and howitzer)

and finally I agree with alot of the posts in here by other peeps. This game was not beta tested obviously which is my third beef and why your going to take alot of well deserved flak ! If it had been properly alot of these complaints would have been resolved. I think purchasers deserve some compensation for devs cheaping out on the testing aspect and making a title a public beta test -meaning you buy it then you do the testing for us. It's a nice new trend in gaming and quite popular among purchasers. Keep up the good work and encourage even more title pirating ! (then complain about why people use pirated games later lmfao) Personally I don't support pirating but I do support that 1 week return policy at eb games. I classify it as "incompatability issues" for games with obvious bugs and slack development and coding. Another word for it is sheer lazyness by the devs.

Viriato
4th Jun 2005, 19:09
1) Pause and command option.
2) Speed slider.
3) Morale.
4) Ability to rally routed troops.
5) Customisable hotkeys.
6) More historical battles: wagram, Friedland, Iena, Marengo, also naval battles as Trafalgar.

Rikolus
5th Jun 2005, 20:59
I agree with the multitude of posts about the game speed. We have a strong a Napoleonic (miniatures, boardgames, etc) group in our area. One friend has IG, and I went and saw the other day. Gorgeous graphics, and captures the feel and flair of the time period. However, the game plays TOO FAST! I was shocked when we turned away for just a moment and suddenly saw that the opposing line infantry had formed column and were across a field and upon our troops in a flash. Altho he enjoys the game, he admits that it is frustrating to have an idea of a battle strategy only to see it foiled, not by better or more clever moves, but by a system that developes into a clickfest of frenzied action. Also, it seemed to me that infantry MUSKET range (I have seen others refer to the term Rifles, but in this period the vast majority of troops did not possess them), is too long. Units could not fire through other friendly units and I saw that as well. Neither is a real big issue. But the inability to adjust the speed of the battle will keep me from buying it. Adjust that one issue and I'll jump in and purchase!

Oststar
6th Jun 2005, 02:42
Pre-release member dropping by, just to give my two "cence" about everything. Well I played the naval battles and i'd recommend having a better defined border: I had the Temeraire athwart Freya's hawse, and just as the final rippling grapeshot tore across the deck of Freya... "Our ship as left the battle!"

I was less than happy.

It occured to me however that roundshot needs to damage the crew a little and grapeshot be shorter ranged. A quote by a respected historian: "You can't very well sink a wooden hulled ship with your cannon, what you can do however, is break their morale." With this in mind you'll notice that the vast majority of sea battles of the day resulted in capture, not sinking, whether the enemy ship was undamaged or near foundering (Yes foundering: floundering is a common mistake). The main reason for firing roundshot was the splinters that bounced around inside the hull that could kill a man, then once the crew and ship were sufficiently battered you'd board and capture the ship. The reason grapeshot wasn't often used against a ship was range: they'd pound each other at a few hundred yards and then once close the splinters did more damage than grape because the majority of the crew was in the hull manning the guns.

Therefore Rounshot should do 1/2 personnel damage and grape should be shorter ranged. I don't think we'll see it nor is it number 1 on my list, but it's a note.

I'll also add that there is so much repeated and also simply just, crap, that the good suggestions are likely to be overlooked. I think there is something in the vicinity of 250 posts here. No dev has time for that.

Longstreet63
6th Jun 2005, 21:43
I've played through about ten campaigns now and here is what I see:

1) Ship battles. Once you understand how to use the follow and autofire commands, multiple ship battles are much more efficient. Once you understand that you must turn when you see that little symbol over your ship, you stop losing ships off the edge. When the AI gets stuck in a loop at the map edge use the 'stop' command and just wait for him to come into your line of fire.

That said, it would be nice if wind actually played some sort of role. there's no way sailing ships could effectively dogfight in circles the way they do now. They'd lose most of their speed tacking all the time. Chain shot also has no apparent effect and cannot dismast an enemy, while grape is far too damaging. Still, I can deal with it as it is.

2) Square formation should not work on infantry. That is, it should not cause a rout, regroup in a grenadier battalion coming in to engage. They'd just plow into it. Square vs. infantry= dead square. Still, I can work with it.

3) Morale doesn't exist except within the context of the square. This should be added, as it was the deciding factor in every battle. Then, a unit attempting to melee and its target would have to undergo a serious morale check. In most cases, one or the other would fail. The attacker would fall back or the target would rout. That's what actually happened. Men do not gladly suffer steel. Obviously, morale checks when taking damage would be easier at range.

4) Speed slider: This is a wonderful game and I wish it would stop wasting my time. The loading screens take ages and the turns themselves are interminable. OK, but to add to that the eight minutes it takes to march up to the defenders of Vienna before a shot is fired--each and every time I have to assault it!--is just sadistic. Combat speed is actually okay with me now--or would be, if the morale check was implemented.

5) Active Pause: This is needed simply because of the bizarre grouping arrangements that occur when moving as a formed body. One must either move single units and guess where they'll be or move the group and try and straighten it out singly at the destination. This would give us time to give individual orders and attack in multiple locations.

6) Peaceful annexation: This is just silly. Like the Islamic empires are going to peacefully join up with the Austrians or the Russians? Insane! There are at least five different religious traditions on the map, all with homicidal feelings about the rest. It should be much harder and all but impossible in some cases. I've modded the sympathy values to start the game in a state of widepread hostility, but that just delays things about a year.

7) Units are chesspieces, all identical across national lines, except the super horse from Poland and Egypt and THEY are identical. Slight national variations would be nice, or better yet, special units for more region with differing characteristics. KGL troops from Hanover; cheap weak, brave Russian militia; Swiss Guards from the Papal States, etc. Variety makes for replayability.

7) Crashes and reboots still happen and are a bit annoying, as well as occasional video artifacting. I assume that's a Radeon 9600 issue, so I'll be seeking even yet newer drivers.

I love the game--it's just a little short of perfection in design. Oh, and the French dragoon should be called a Carabineer.

SJ

Longstreet63
6th Jun 2005, 23:11
Seems like the third era production buildings are bugged.

EDITED AFTER FURTHER STUDY:

The third tier production facilities actually raise production to a maximum of double base value in the entire region, when built in the capitol province (like food production). So, although you can build the population and materials buildings in the provinces, you will get no extra production from them. I suspect this is a bug one way or the other, but considering that a steel mill in, say Moldavia will take over twelve years (153 turns @ 13/units/turn) to pay for itself, maybe it was changed to make them useful.

LS
"While withdrawing under fire is a difficult task, the fact remains that it occurs in nearly 100% of all engagements. It's called retreat."

c-mattio
6th Jun 2005, 23:49
I wonder if this may be a bug, anyone else encountered it?

I had Helvetian Republic as a peacefully annexed country (ie they joined my empire willingly). I went to war with France and they invaded and conquered HR and started to seige it.

After this I get a message HR has been liberated and troops have deserted. If a country that willingly joins me is invaded and seiged by an enemy, it should not be liberated and its troops desert the empire to which it belongs. It just seems silly.



......
2) The United States added as a power... we did defeat Great Britan in two wars within a 30 year period.
......

I believe you may be wrong. The United States never won any wars against the British. I suppose one could say Britain lost the American Revolutionary War, but it was really France, Spain and the Netherlands declaring war on Britain that clinched that, not any American efforts.

Pepe Hillo
7th Jun 2005, 09:19
At last I bought imperial glory last week. Well, I didn't bought it, my girlfriend gave me a surprise....
I started playng IG on saturday for a few hours. In sunday, I shut down my computer and I put on the shelf that game. My expectatives about IG were too high I wonder.
Some causes that made me stop playing:
-Suicide IA. One battle against Austria, I was the attacker. They were outnumbered, and their forces clearly weaker than mines. They had a river, hills and some buildings so that enemy army had a chance to defend the place. Guess what the IA decide to do with its army... Starting to cross the river leaving a huge distance from one batallion to another. I slaughter them with artillary and with less than 1/3 of their effectives, each isolated battalion, tried a volley against four companies of my grenadiers. In RTW crossing rivers and well defended areas have a cost.
-Bizarre time managing. How about time managing in battles? You have to spend 15 minutes deploying troops and after the first round of fire the battle last less than 1 minute. And they fight to death always!
-Unbalanced forces. It is possible for less than a half squadron of a household cavarly unit to destroy two batteries and a whole grenadier battalion? In IG, it is.
-Were's the officer? And the drummers? And the peppers?
-Naval warfare. No comments. Very nice graphics.
-I love fighting always in the same place. It doesn't matter if my troops invade the country from the north, east, west, south or sea. In that point Activision guys role you.
-Diplomatic annexion? If Wellington rises from his grave...
-My old fashioned Risk game map had the same number of countries.

Conclusion. I've read all those comments before, so not saying anything new. For all of those who expected, as me, IG an evolution of RTW, do not buy that game. Maybe wait for a 1.1 version or IG2.

Sorry for being so hard, but sincerely I'm terribly dissapointed.

And excuse my english!

mob
7th Jun 2005, 09:59
well a few mp probloms
i sugest you simply copy rtw
this ip things makes us use gamespy and there should be a lobby
also all units need to be slowed down cavelry move like cars
not a whole lot to complain about really exept the end of game thing where it shows kills and some flags
copy rtw
its simple if you want a great game copy alot of rtw aspects but have your own ideas that you are sure will trash rome put in aswell
if you are unsure about weather they are better or not do one of 2 things

get beta testers or copy rtw

im not trying to be funny rtw has been out since last summer and it still retains its original price that shows that people are still buying it and very few are selling

c-mattio
7th Jun 2005, 12:01
Back to the actual point of the thread:

1) Naval combat is, in my opinion, badly thought out. Increasing the size of the map would make improve it, but the essence is still flawed. The reason why their are few games of sailing ship combat is that it is difficult to do it in a reasonably accurate and enjoyable way. The only reasonable example of sailing ship combat I have played is Age of Sail 2: Privateer's Bounty.

2) Battles are two small really, I would like them to be bigger.

3) The problem with battle speed is as said by a few others that it takes 10 minutes to manoeuvre into position and 10 seconds for actual combat to be resolved. Rifles ranges should be increased and damage decreased (I wonder if this could be done in a config file).

4) High ground should confer a range bonus on rifles and artillery as well as a melee bonus.

4) A greater role for the lesser nations other than quickly being annexed would be nice, but I feel this may be beyond the game's programming. I agree with one poster who said that the Ottomans would never be annexed by other powers, this is a fair point, but they could potentially form anti-european alliances with the North African powers. This would be great.

5) AI in both battles and on the campaign map seems a little poor. I have only so far played in easy, but even so its behaviour is curious on occasion. Abandoning easily defensible positions that it needs to hold to win in favour of a quick engagement that it mostly loses one of a few odd acts.

All in all, I still enjoy this game (having only been playing it for two days). But a few things could do with tweaking.

Skirmisher
7th Jun 2005, 20:44
OK, apologies if this turns into a bit of an essay - I'll try to keep it brief or at least split it up a bit :p
I won't make any promises to be an expert on the period; let's just say I have a very enthusiastic interest.

Here are my suggestions to improve the land battles. To help illustrate some of my points, I'll compare the game's recreation of Waterloo with the real battle.

1) First of all, please stop asking for Cossacks style drummers and officers! No battalion would ever have left barracks without 30 officers, a full colour party, and various drummer boys and in some cases their own full band! To think that 1 officer, 1 standard bearer and 1 drummer could be deployed as a seperate entity on a battlefield belongs in arcade strategies.

2) Onto Waterloo - The French guns on the south ridge could fire right across the valley, over the heads of the Allies and down the other side of the north ridge. In the game, artillery fire barely reaches the bottom of the ridge it's placed on!! Clearly the range of heavy guns needs to be increased significantly.

3) On the subject of artillery, a common tactic was to arrange artillery on the corners and in front of squares of infantry. If enemy forces approached, the gunners could fire until the last moment then retire to the safety of the square. In the game, the guns and crew are treated as a single entity, and if a battery is caught out in the open, it's wiped out in seconds.

4) Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte held their gates shut (excepting a couple of brief breaches) for almost the entire battle. In the game, there is no option to barricade. As soon as an enemy force approaches a building you control, they all file in and start scrapping!

5) Dead ground - dips and hills in terrain could hide literally thousands of cavalry, and this tactic was used in almost every battle over a decade! The charge of the Union and Household brigades at Waterloo was crushed by a counter by two brigades of lancers who were hidden in a small wooded valley, barely two hundred yards from the British left. In the game there is no way of hiding anything!!

6) Dead bodies - the French always attacked in column and so the British always met them in line and destroyed them with volleys. Part of the reason behind this was as the column approached 50 yards of the line, the number of dead at the column's head started to pile up. At twenty yards, the bodies were virtually impassable, thus stalling the progress of the column, and providing an increasingly better target. As the game already has a "difficult terrain" feature perhaps this could be extended, in varying degrees, to areas with lots of bodies.

That's enough for the time being!!

Element-UK
7th Jun 2005, 20:49
Maybe the ability to play any of the 3 ERA's from your first month. One prob many are seeing is that by the time the game gets to what should be it's most interesting, there are not enough Powers left to oppose you. If say, we had the abilty to start in the 2nd/3rd era, alot more variety of units would be played with and therefore the battles alot more of a challenge.

bodkinhead
8th Jun 2005, 02:20
Just a note on morale and speed.

If it is implemented in a patch, make sure the morale
is not so weak that lower classes of infantry run away
soon as they cop one volley of fire, I think that would
wreck the game and battles would be over in no time.
I always thought it was too low for most units in RTW.

If a speed slider or some other way of reducing game
speed is introduced then obviously the battle
timer needs to go slower as well. ;)

My patch wish is for any nation to put 4 armies into
a region not just the attacking nation, that way
all can have reinforcements.

Fiddlerpig
8th Jun 2005, 05:26
Better yet, don't have any limitations on the amount of armies in a territory. Any excess units will be reinforcements. :)

Azharas Knight
8th Jun 2005, 07:55
The ability to change the names of your commanders. I might be fun to lead your armies under your own name.

zizzenet
8th Jun 2005, 08:04
Could be a good idea, or I can just see people using huge armies to roll over opponents unless the computer player can counter such a threat by massing it's own armies.

In any case the system as it stands is unfair to a defender as the attacker
can put an army in as a reinforcement.

Maybe the defender has one less army in a battle, but he has a better position on the battlefield. N'est-ce pas?

Mike_B
8th Jun 2005, 11:46
Ok I just went through all the 9 pages in order to clean this thread up and make it more readable and more enjoyable for those who want to read this and for the developers.

Now in order to keep this thread clean keep the following in mind before posting:


this is not a discussion thread, just post your suggestion but refrain from starting a discussion about that specific feature in this thread. Look in the forum or there's already a thread about it, or if you wish start one yourself.


to go further on the discussion aspect, there's also no need to things like why laptops are good or not for gaming or whether or not America defeated Britain.


Thanks for the coloboration, new posts that are not a suggestions of any sort will be deleted on sight.

baladure
8th Jun 2005, 17:47
it would be better to have a lobby instead of gamespy because i myself and loads of people have to start the game with 3d-analyze so we cant play online through gamespy

Skirmisher
8th Jun 2005, 19:21
Infantry form square far too quickly - historically, if the cavalry had already started to charge it was already too late to change formation. If this above is implemented, then the battalion commanders should be given the ability to change formation as they see the situation, unless you tell them to hold no matter what. After all, the real generals often couldn't see all of their forces, and would never have had to tell each individual battalion to "form square" each time.

In keeping with the above, if canister/grape is implemented for artillery, then the battery commanders should switch ammunition depending on the situation ie canister when the target is within 100 yds, but not if friendlies are nearby etc. Again, this would be historically correct.

Light infantry are not quite represented properly - the British had few dedicated skirmishing battalions. The tenth company in each battalion was the light company and they would deploy as skirmishers. The French generally used whole skirmish regiments, as did the germanic armies. I understand that this would be extremely difficult to implement in the game, but it would add an extra touch of realism.

Reinforcing depleted battalions after battles would be more accurate if the player had a pool of recruits that they could move to the under strength units as they see fit.

Others have complained that a group of sloops can easily destroy a ship of the line. This may be because the game assumes that all naval cannon are the same size. However, sloops could only ever carry 16 pound cannon at the most which wouldn't even have made a dent in the sides of most line ships. In contrast, at Trafalgar HMS Victory carried 12, 24 and 32 pound guns. A single broadside (if accurate enough) from guns of that size would have literally shredded a sloop!

Skirmisher
8th Jun 2005, 19:25
Oh, just a minor point - the .pdf manual states that Portugal can't build marksmen - in fact throughout the Peninsula War they fielded more regiments armed solely with rifles than the British, and even some light companies of otherwise musket battalions had rifles!!

Nial
8th Jun 2005, 20:22
Oh, just a minor point - the .pdf manual states that Portugal can't build marksmen - in fact throughout the Peninsula War they fielded more regiments armed solely with rifles than the British, and even some light companies of otherwise musket battalions had rifles!!

Heh.......Manual is wrong. Portugal produces the best riflemen in the game. They are equal to black watch stats.

THANK GOD the GUNS
9th Jun 2005, 08:50
First off, love the game, even without some historical accuracy it's a dream to march imperial guards up past La Belle Alliance :)

Suggestions

If you do include America in an expansion of the napoleonic map, dont forget CANADA, they together with the British Empire inflicted some serious losses on the USA in 1812 ( the miltia also helped out in the war of independence ) You recall the failed America invasions, countless battles lost and last of all the burning of washington and raZing the White house to the ground by Crown troops. Which in my minds count as a win .Even though technicially the books say the war was a draw . :eek: (I do love the Old USA btw . but hope the myth dies that they never got defeated against the Union Jack)

Reinforcements seem a bit lame, Im thinking of Quatre Bra where the battle was decided on the timely and strung out reserves coming forward.
Be nice to see some method where they could be given peice meal if the situation decided.

Needs much bigger battlegrounds with the abiltity to zoom out /in to map level. Waterloo seems awfully small and the number of units minute. Would like to fight Bordinio with the correct regiments and scale for example. Need an abiltiy to control corps/sections as well. (through leaders as been suggestions?)

Navy battles, vauge. Takes 1/2 hour to knock the sails off 1 sloop ! You can 90% of the time always win by boarding vs pounding. No way to control numbers of ships or give tactics such as arrowheads, as mentioned before

AI kinda wierd ,for example, if you have 3 line regiments vs 3 artillery sections, the AI lots of time will give massive losses. But when you
play it out , you can just send the guys to charge the guns & the losses are minimal. AI also loves to send those poor gunners out first to be wiped out a lot. Horse artilley (RHA) was for the british side was 6 horses in parallel pairs with a carriage...I think, unless I didnt see um they looked like they are always just being dragged. Love to see the dash of horses race up with the cannons. Need GRAPE/CANNISTER !! Last defence vs hordes

Miltia's over powered, they just wade through regular troops. why are they also so effective ? Should be under equipped and easily fustrated

+ suggestions
ROADS /crossroads/barriers really affecting troop movements. Historical leaders given special bonus for ability. Yea old boney helping them poor french gunners etc. Flanks being attacked/turned, hit from the rear doesnt seem to do anything, nor being surrounded and or the shock of calvary

Love the buildings and cities,excellant work but the street figthing doesnt really work. as in house to house,barricades etc

Excuse my spelling and gripes,,,but the game has so much potential hope it improves. A great step forward in napoleonic gaming

Regards

THANK GOD the GUNS

Pepe Hillo
9th Jun 2005, 09:43
Miltia's over powered, they just wade through regular troops. why are they also so effective ? Should be under equipped and easily fustrated



Totally agree.

Does anyone know if devs are working for a patch?

Gorasonas
9th Jun 2005, 12:19
Multiplayer suggestions:

Regard goold old Praetorians

- It should be possible to capture several strategic positions on a map
- Holding strategic points should give you some reeinforcements
- only good balanced maps should be available in multiplayer

- attacker should get a money bonus

Celestial
9th Jun 2005, 15:15
I really like your game. The battles are really good, and the campaign map even better. When you play your game, you really have the 19th century feeling.

But I have a few minor things I wanted to inform you of. First: it would be nice to make Batavia have the capitol Amsterdam, not Brussels. Belgium was Austrian in that time, so it should be a part of Austria. Rotterdam should then become the wharf in Batavia.The eastern border of Batavia is also incorrect.

My second point: I think Russia should consist of more provinces than 5. Modern day Italy has six, while Russia is much bigger. Suggestions for other provinces: Crimea, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuana. Also, there is a province called "Eastern Prussia". I believe this region was called Pommerania.
The last thing I would like to say, is that it would be great if the Ottoman Empire also became a playable empire. If this could be done, they should of course have more regions. Anatolia coudl be divided in the real Anatolia(modern-day Turkey), Syria, Lebanon, etc.

I would appreciate it if you woudl consider this when you are making a patch.

Nial
9th Jun 2005, 16:30
Ok.....here goes.

1) speed slider, for both land and sea battles.

2) AI produces higher level units more often late in the game. ( this would really help replayability)

3) Fluff= officers, drummer, more accurate uniforms.

4) New units.- French, Austrian, Russian, Prussian guard cav, Hannoverian Jagers, English Queens own Cav. (( preferably, lt. and Hvy. Guard cav for France, Hvy. only for the others, Queens own= hvy.))


5) Tweak moral so units break at a certain percentage of losses.

6) Increase cannon range slightly.
7) Give 6lb and 12lb cannons a slight arc to their projectiles. ( more realistic)

Preveze1538
9th Jun 2005, 21:28
It is a great game but please make AI more challenging. Even in hard mode, game doesn't take more than 13-14 hours.
Also peacefull annexation is toooooooo easy.
Please make it harder, after one week I have no need of playing this great game, it becomes too boring with weak AI.

Preveze1538
9th Jun 2005, 21:46
There is also a very big historical problem. Ottomans were turks. Could you tell me please when they use arabic? light infantry :eek: I also think one of game programmer was greek because they named whole anatolia "constantinople" :mad: :confused:

Fiddlerpig
9th Jun 2005, 23:00
Ok, now my complaints:

- I don't recall any units of the period fighting with sticks, except the Parisian mobs during the revolution, but even then most of them had some kind of firearm. Either give the militia guns with a low rate of fire and melee value or take the "thug mob" unit out of the game. This is a game about the Napoleonic War, not the Medieval period.

- Why the hell do militia have higher melee stats than normal line units? I lost a battle I would've won in real life (4 line vs. 6 militia) because of this dumb, and historically false, implementation of stats.

- Morale!! Please, for the love of God, patch in morale!! Why would you not implement morale into A NAPOLEONIC WAR GAME in the first place? Were you insane when you reached this part of developement? Did an evil, Satanic demon possess you and MAKE you not put morale into A WAR GAME? When militia charge a unit line infantry, and receive a full volley in the face, they should RUN AWAY, not keep charging like robots!!

- As stated earlier, please put in pause/command. Either you were trying to differentiate yourselves from the Total War series, or you had a sudden lapse of stupidity, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you DIDN'T implement this aspect of war gaming into your game....

- Game speed/speed slider. Everything happens to fast, its a frikin click fest.

- Do something about the AI. Every battle I've faught turns into a street brawl. Very un-Napoleonic, and not very fun....

- It takes me 5 turns to travel from Brittany to Brandenburg, but it takes me 1 turn to reach the Urals from Minsk? Do something abour Provence sizes, please....

- Please, please, PLEASE allow us to custom our controls. Why would you not put this in A WAR GAME?

- Naval battles, in general, SUCK. It, like the land battles, is to fast. Ships in general should be slower. Please implement formations, auto-fire, and better controls in general.

- Campaign is ok, but it's way to easy annex a country. Playing as France, I was able to annex half of Europe. It's also irritating to for another country to annex the country you just liberated. I'm also tired of being ripped off by the AI. They continuously offer me bogus deals, and, when I reject them, the sympathy between our nation decreases (another historical mistake made by ES). Fix the mistakes in the campaign please...

That's it for now, more later.

Eruan
10th Jun 2005, 00:25
Just a small idea, the square formation didn't involve people strictly forming a box in the field, it was a box with a hollow part in the center to allow the commander and musicians to be protected inside... Make the square historically proper, and please allow it to move, maybe very slowly but not transferring through a column formation :rolleyes:

More units please, it's nice to have spanish guerillas and co. but the core units of the empires have equal stats :rolleyes: and so it's not funny to fight especially against the neutral countries with units that have the same strength as you do :confused:

Lt. Kyuzo
10th Jun 2005, 12:23
Well i have been reading this thread for some time and i agree with the most of the things that have been said. the things that i want in a patch mainly are

Lower stats for milita, only down a few points but just to make them worse than line infantry

More range for artillery as at the mo after the first or second volley your muskets are in range if being attacked

at least some sort of morale this is a key part of any modern strategy game so please for the love of god put one in as this will make the game so much better than it is.

Apart from these points i think the game is very good. just please get some very simple things done and this game will be a classic

Angelus888
10th Jun 2005, 13:30
I really hope the devs read this stuff because it seems to me the game is in dire need of a patch.

- Uniforms, flags and models need changind to take into account wha it was REALLY like back then. Some units wear the wrong hats and uniforms are wrongly coloured.

- Morale is essential. I can't think of a time someone would charge into a line of muskets, such as militia charging into British Red Coats. You'd just run. Not even the Americans in 'The Patriot' portrayed themselves as defying something like that. War is a horrifying thing. You just don't stay and fight to the last man.

- Pause function needed

- Customisable controls needed

- Game speed variation bar needed

- Many AI changes and improvements needed.

I'm saying the same as everyone else - just goes to show the demand for this. Eidos - great game but please pay heed to this or replayability will cease and sales will drop.

Element-UK
10th Jun 2005, 13:38
Artillery ' Firing by Recoil ' would give them some time when charged. In fact we need a skirmish order for all troops except Non- Dragoon Cav. May have been mentioned but not gonna look through 9 pages.

Halberdier
10th Jun 2005, 14:00
Pause to send orders

Napaleonic blitzkrieg
10th Jun 2005, 22:22
Hi RTS fans! I'm also one of them! (Btw, love TW series, played MTW, RTW some time ago) Bought the game a week ago, been playing very intensively for a few days/nights, recently I've found this nice IG forum, so also want to post some ideas on the coming patch of this wonderful RTS Napaleonic era game. Of course I'll be repeating many things so sorry for that guys. Here's my summary:

3D BATTLES needs some serious attention:
1. ACTIVE PAUSE AND COMMAND: imo, definitely the most needed improvement - while I still (when I'm patient :p ) can play land battles without it, the naval combat is absolutely a tradegy and the "You're about to suffer a grave defeat, POOF" thing makes me and all of us very pissed :mad:. Oh God enough been said about this one!
2. REALISTIC SPEED: yeah yeah I know it's just a game, but why not keep it more realistic and thus more enjoyable? Cavalry move like cars, cannons limber/unlimber/fire too quick, seems to me like the enemy always runs faster than me, ships imo move/fire bit too fast land and naval battle speed definitely needs your attention and improvement Pyro studios! To my mind, this isue can be solved by patching seperate troop speed and by making a speed slider.
3. MORALE ISSUE: so victory or death, no retreat ah? This one really annoys me very much. Seems like only cavalry has some morale problem when facing infantry square, but all other units seem like they're not humans, when they're pounded by cannons :confused: . Morale played a major role in Napaleonic era, so everyone wants it to be fixed.
4. ACCURACY/HAND to HAND/KILL RATE: Firstly, to my mind there's too much hand to hand fight: this is 19th century for God's sake not Medieval times; secondly muskets and especially cannons seems way too accurate, like modern day weapons, thus when all comes together that's why battle takes less then a minute, because of the enourmous kill rate (Btw, this is also a speed problem). Beg you Pyro studios for this to be fixed.
5. TROOP ATTACK/DEFENCE RATINGS: imo cavalry is way overpowered - I saw once when 24 Lancers cut down my entire 2 battalions of Light Infantry, cavalry lost like 10 men. This is just stupid. Are they ubermensch or smth? Also militia seems too powerful in hand to hand; btw I don't get it how cannons be detroyed, crew is mowed down not the guns, cannons should only be captured! That's what happened in Napaleonic times.
6. TROOP DEPLOYMENT/FRIENDLY FIRE?: that "turning thing" - you know when a battalion makes a 45 degree turn or smth to face the enemy, why can't they just shoot not straight but at 45 degree instead, cause when a unit turns like that, it is very exposed on flanks and an easy pray for a cavalry. Also experienced some problems when lining units. There should be like some default troop deployment schemes like in RTW, e.g. all infantry forms in a line or two lines (not unit depth, but one/two front lines), cavalry behind them, you get me. Btw FF should be fixed, cause unit and cannons can't just easily shoot on my own guys in melee. Speeking about cannons there should be an option of auto fire also, cannons should also hit someone through trees (that's a bug). And almost forgot, about the naval combat there also should be like some battle formation schemes (e.g. the popular ship line formation, vans, etc.).
7. NAVAL COMBAT: MY WORST NIGHTMARE: I hate the bounds issue and AI always fighting on the edges of these bounds. Management of ships should also be made approriate, also when ship crews fight and one of them is destroyed we still see crewmen (a bug), who should be dead, but stand like nothing happened; ships inflame so quickly, I think only the ship about to sink should be like that. Oh and the sinking process should be more entertaining, it's too fast really, and after the ship has gone to saint john's whatever we should see some wood and barrels floating in water maybe some men swimming (well, this one is a wish, but it would be so nice). It would be cool that when I place combat units (in Strategy map) in a ship they would be visible in naval combat and should have some effect (just my wish) like additional fire or smth.
8. IMPROVE LAND BATTLE AI: the AI should never leave its strategic taken positions (e.g on hill) unless of very heavy cannon fire. Right now AI just screams (oh and that scream sound btw needs some improvement, it's kinda weird, comes straight out of nowhere) to you from a house and gets mowed to pieces by my cannons. Also imo AI should attack more concentrated, not by single units but with all they've got.
9. MORE EPIC FIGHTS FOR CAPITALS: there should be more barricades, so we could really feel that we are in the 19th century, not just walkie talkie take the position job done. It should be quite difficult to take capitals.
10. WHERE ARE THE LEADERS UNIT?: where is Napaleon I ask you? :D
Well it's just about all I can think right now about 3d battles, which is certainly the Achilles sinew of IG.
11. RESTRICTION OF CAMERA would add more realism

IMO Strategy map has way fewer bugs, glitches, so here's what I've noticed about STRATEGY MAP:
1. TROOP SIZES AND PRICES: imo this should be adjusted so we could all field larger armies. RTW for example had unit size option, in IG there could be smth similar. The prices of units should be way lower. What a hell, how can I need 1100 people to produce 36 people of hussars. This is an absurd.
2. MORE ARMIES IN A PROVINCE
3. MORE SOLID AND BALANCED AI ARMIES: Oh how I love fighting an army of howitzers!
4. HARDER DIFFICULTY: the AI should build more infrastructure, trade, diplomatic buildings, cause right now at some point the AI is far beyond me in research (I play as GB on hard)
5. PEACIFUL ANNEXATION SHOULD BE WAY DIFFICULT: also more uprisings would be good to see.
6. STRANGE THINGS: in one my campaign on hard Batavia destroyed France, this is crazy, Austria takes Tunisia WTH? Especially sometimes at the beggining major powers are destroyed, this should not happen
7. TAKING A PROVINCE, CAPITAL: wth I landed in Brittany, the French did not fight me and still this land is not mine? Imo after taking major power's capital only the capital should not be annexed, but all the other previously taken provinces should be in my control.
8. SOME DIPLOMACY GLITCHES: after freeing a country, it is annexed next turn by other country. Quite annoying. More alliances, coalitions against human player would be nice, especially when one becomes more and more powerful (just like against Napaleon)
9. Able to play a smaller country (a wish)

So here you go, these are my thoughts, I intended no offense, must say I LOVE THIS GAME, play it day/night, it is the best game of Napaleonic era, it has so much potential, everyone wants it to be perfect. Please Pyro studios hear the voice of players, make a good patch so we could all be proud of this game! Best of luck to everyone!

P.S. Sorry for my English.

Napaleonic blitzkrieg
11th Jun 2005, 11:45
Oh and additional features in 3d land battle could be drummer boys, pipers, flagbearers (showing units morale), skirmishing light infantry and cavalry carabinneers. That's a wish, but think how that would improve realism and make the game so exciting :D . Don't dissapoint your faithful gamers Pyro studios! :thumbsup:

Preveze1538
11th Jun 2005, 13:20
I am okey with all complaining with gameplay problems but I think this game is different from other same age games because of its strategic bacround. But AI is very weak and never make modern units.
And the biggest problem on strategic area is peacefull annxation which is unrealistically easy. When I was playing with prussia, I was at war with Russia at the beginning of the game(hard mode). So both empire become weaker until I annex Sweden which was STRONGER than both of us :eek: Is that realistic :confused:

Skirmisher
11th Jun 2005, 17:24
Oh and additional features in 3d land battle could be drummer boys, pipers, flagbearers (showing units morale),

Only if this is represented by a full Colour Party or band - the idea of "adding on" a musician, standard bearer, and officer is utterly ridiculous in a realistic rts. This belongs in Cossacks!! This game deals with complete units - whole battalions, which would have 30 plus officers, and a 20 strong Colour Party and 15 or so drummers, or even a complete regimental band.

kamikaze001
12th Jun 2005, 16:05
Well lets get the ball rolling on the first of what will most likely be alot of patches. It'd sure be nice if Eidos took a little notice of all the postings and began to adress a few of the more problematic bugs/quirks/glitches and or gremlins.
No Morale? ..C'mon guys! Super Conscripts?? whats that?? Infantry with full gear sprinting Like Ben Johnson juiced on roids???? :confused:

I really want to like this game, but right now it just doesn't live up to its fullest potential..Once its fully patched and all the nasties are dealt with..I bet it will FullY ROCk! :thumbsup: :D

Sotos
12th Jun 2005, 16:17
The only thing i would like with a patch is a better Battle AI

that's all


I also think one of game programmer was greek because they named whole anatolia "constantinople" :mad: :confused:

I am also a Greek
Do you have a problem with that?? :rolleyes:

And YES most of that area was a part of CONSTANTINOUPOLE and of the Byzantium Empire
later the barbarian turks\ottoman empire showed up from the East and conquered it and renamed all that land

To bad there is no turkish programmer in Pyro Studios for you :rolleyes:
"your turkish history about territory names and to who belonged to " must be better i guess :rolleyes:

Longstreet63
12th Jun 2005, 19:46
Could we perhaps have an option somewhere to turn off Captain Obvious, that disembodied voice of your aide who must surely be a relative, since his pronouncements never fail to provoke disdain. "You are destroying the enemy" comes up whenever you outnumber them, while if the opposite is true, we're "being annihilated"--even though no shooting has yet occurred.I can read the victory bars myself, thank you. I don't want to turn off the voice volume for fear of losing the wonderful authentic command voices of the units in the appropriate languages (There's a big score for you in immersion vs. RTW, which has the most annoying command voices imaginable).

I'd also like to see a breakdown post-battle of casualties caused by each individual unit on your side (yes, ala TW). Had an engagement where a battery of 12-pounders was charged by four companies of lancer in column, right into the barrels. The guns were lost, of course (no way to protect them), but the greasy stain of dead horses extended the length of its range and I'd dearly love to know if it caused enough damage to make the loss worthwhile. Definitely a Legion of Merit moment there.

LS
"Charge, men--if we take this farmhouse, we'll control Poland!"

BANANAMAN
12th Jun 2005, 21:32
Hi there Pyro Studios & Eidos,

First of all, whatever improvements Pyro Studios & Eidos will implement into Imperial Glory they will have to be in:

* the upcoming patches.
* upcoming next new/fresh stock of copies which have to be made yet before being shipped to the stores.

Improvements/suggestions are:

* There must be a hold/stand ground option/feature being added.
* There must be a game-speed slider being added, so that the gamer decides what speed the game is achieving.
* There must be added the pause & giving orders during pause feature, this for land and sea battles.
* There must be deleted the annoying voice wether you are loosing are winning the battle.
* There must be deleted the annoying timer which gives you no option for a long battle.
* The riffles are too lethal and because of this the battles are way too short. Riffles in Imperial Glory must be less lethal.
* The enemy cavalry is way too suicidal by attacking the cannons straight on, so that your cannons work like magnets for enemy cavalry which is not a nice feature.
* It seems like infantry cannot stop enemy cavalry from attacking your cannons. Infantry must have the ability to stop enemy cavalry attack.
* The cannons must have longer firing range with a lower firing rate instead of what is now which is cannons having short firing range with a high firing rate which is just annoying, very annoying. So, please let the cannons have long firing range with a low firing rate.


That's it, those were the basic suggestions for improvements which should make Imperial Glory more enjoyable to play. :)

redcoat17
14th Jun 2005, 00:03
1. As everyone else has said... battles much more like "Take Command: Bull Run." More fire and position (slower) rather than run and melee.

2. Allow the ship to combine into fleets much like the armies do. Rather than tons of little ship icons on the map.

3. Soldiers carry the muskets at the shoulder rather than port arms. (Am I the only one this bothers so much?)

4. maybe the same amount of units but more men... i.e. 120 vs. 60

Cheers!

Good work guys

PorT_Lobo
14th Jun 2005, 03:46
The most important is to fix the game exploits:!

Game Exploits:

- Give 15% favour for all map when player free a capital and no occupy it, it's to much!! With that and in medium/later game is easy to get 100% in several country and anexate. After the 8 rounds for save passage you can go there and occupy the country you previously free without problems.

- Naval battles in autoresolve are to unfair and benefict player..... 2 sloops vs 1, always sink the one alone and the players only stay with 9+% condition (almost dont get damage)!

I noticed also a problem with AI:

In London when attacking with artillary we can kill the deffenders without they fight, and when they all die, AI call more companys to take they're place.... so player can kill all opposition except the ones who stay inside castle.

At last, as everybody says before....... in battle we need a speed timer to get troops fast to objective.....

Anyway, the game has potential and Pyro/Eidos deserve congratulations!!! Good job guys!!!

PorT_Lobo
14th Jun 2005, 14:04
The only way to get great simpathy to anexate other nations shoulded be by building in that country...... note that 15% for free a Neutral Capital (that you can take few after) GIVE MORE THAN BUILD JOURNALISM!!!!

And free 3 capitals (what is easy to do after a few years of play) give a bost of 45% of simpathy in all map!!!

That is absurd.....

That's why many people finish game in Era 2 without using the best units in game....

A sugestion, do it in other way, if you don't free a capital when you conquer it, your simpathy goes dramatically down in all map, but if you free it, you don't get any simpathy or at most 3/4%!!!!

With this measure, game experience would change for a lot of players that say's game is easy because use the neutral nations army to combat instead built they're owns...... :rolleyes:

Skirmisher
14th Jun 2005, 18:55
3. Soldiers carry the muskets at the shoulder rather than port arms. (Am I the only one this bothers so much?)

I was thinking just the very same thing last night :D


4. maybe the same amount of units but more men... i.e. 120 vs. 60

Hmm, been thinking about this. How about increasing the number of rendered troops, but reporting realistic numbers on the unit card ie average infantry battalions would be 550 men. After all, on the recruiting screen, this is the population cost for the basic infantry unit!

I know that the TW series shows every individual soldier and the "one figure represents 20" is an old concept, but just because the game looks like TW, does it have to everything just like TW?!? With realistic numbers on the battlefield, perhaps artillery damage would be a bit more realistic.

DamBuster2005
15th Jun 2005, 17:21
Sorry if this has already been suggested theres a lot of pages in this thread togo through but with naval battles there needs to be more options like in infantry battles. You should be able to select multiple ships and tell them to form formations or to fire automatically. Commanding a 6 v 6 naval battle is close to impossible.

Also is it me or does the AI try to make u sale off the edge of the map by constantly circling the outer limits?

queenimperiale
16th Jun 2005, 01:39
Well, I think that there should be more input with the leader of the nation. I mean, if you think about it the era in the game is the height of dynastic relations, especially in constitutional monarchies. The future of countries were heavily dependent on who was able to succeed. From the Hanovers in England to the Romanov in Russia, monarchs held great symbolic and political importance. So, I think there should be more input with them. Declaring your heir or heiress just doesn't cut it. Hell, I pretty much BOUGHT the damn game cause I thought they would've put more input about the monarchs! So, I would like to see the player create their monarch (as every nation, save France, had a monarchy at this time) and you can choose a photo to accompany it. Then, when you choose your heir, upon your death the heir becomes ruler! Come on! THIS HAS TO BE DONE!!!

Queeg
17th Jun 2005, 15:02
I think many of the complaints about battles - too much melee and no time for tactics - could be solved by changing the Militia unit to (1) add a ranged attack capability and (2) reduce its melee value. Militia ought to be just a weaker version of Line Infantry.

As I've played more battles, I've found that most of them can be quite fun and controllable - unless Militia are involved. Battles with heavy doses of Militia are often just free-for-all melees. Because Militia have no ranged capability, they have no choice but to charge. That's a big design mistake - and the source of much of the criticism of the battles - in my opinion.

THANK GOD the GUNS
18th Jun 2005, 11:29
K been playign for a while now, and some more gripes/suggestions are

REVOLTS UGH! How come capital cities can seem to have this never ending supply of revolting troops. That can go for literally year after year. Example whilst trying to take London and Prague it seems like every two turns for 3 years (ARGG) 360 troops magically appeared to fight, sometimes even with ships to match !!ARGGG. It's annoying to have say my 300-400 troops in a capital city, and the country's surrender rate is just 3 % a turn, and of course the vicious circle of continous bi-montly capital battles destroying the troops I do have ARGGG!! Campaign dyanamics make it hard to fit any more troops in than 400 of your "best " units

Why cant I just burn the capital down aka Moscow 1812, Why is their no limit to a populations ability to supply revolt troops, at a huge rate far out of propotion to its size and current situation?? Why do the revolting soldiers always get to defend the capital buildings ? I took London 12 times !!! I think I'd either occupy the castle or again burn it down. ARGGG


Why do they ask me to accept the battle results ?? I cant change it and theirs no options anyhu...Why not have a like to "fight this sucker again?" button. Going to autosave anyhow if I get robbed by the AI

AI badly manages the auto battles, it's so bad you have to fight each encounter just so the far left of outfield strikes don't happen to you.
How many times in the game have ARTILLEY units BEAT infantry!! Accord to the AI quite regualy ARGGG !! Makes the autobattles useless for time saving

Building dyanamic s are wacky, defenders dont seem to get much advantage and so it seems next to useless to out em in there. In waterloo at Hougoment, the regiments lasted all day vs the entire french wing , PS can I pls have a feature to burn buildings down pls,,,huh :D

Need a real Charge/shock feature for troops, dont think I'd be happy to fight if the men in kilts came charging into us, for a whole number of reasons :p

Lastly since Im getting regular crashs and conflicts playing the campaigns, can autosave actually save every turn not just the ones it likes.. Thanks


Love the game , appreciate the company wanting feedback :thumbsup:

Sir Crow
18th Jun 2005, 12:25
My humble suggestion is to fix Multiplay so that it has its own lobby and do something about the other suggestions otherwise the game will die. Have you even seen the following MTW gets? Personally I don't play Cossacks II anymore and my interest in IG is starting to wain and know others who don't play it at all but these players still play MTW or like me NTW which is a mod for MTW+VI.

Nial
18th Jun 2005, 13:45
I think many of the complaints about battles - too much melee and no time for tactics - could be solved by changing the Militia unit to (1) add a ranged attack capability and (2) reduce its melee value. Militia ought to be just a weaker version of Line Infantry.

As I've played more battles, I've found that most of them can be quite fun and controllable - unless Militia are involved. Battles with heavy doses of Militia are often just free-for-all melees. Because Militia have no ranged capability, they have no choice but to charge. That's a big design mistake - and the source of much of the criticism of the battles - in my opinion.

Agreed...........that and implement my suggestions and the game will be perfect. :D

viceroy
20th Jun 2005, 03:39
I would like some scenarios. specifically, different and more historical starts.

for example, EVERY nation should start with about half of the first era improvements (barracks, stables, military academies and the ports that allow sloops and trade ships -- at a minimum)

It would of course be especially good to see some REAL historic scenarios, where you start with ships of the line, horse artillery, guards etc....in short, all of the military tech for all three levels, plus a fair portion of the science/econ/diplomatic etc tech.

1805 would be the best, balanced start.
1792 or 1796 or 1800 would also be good starts.

You could do an 1809 (wellington in Spain, Archduke Charles on the Danube) and an 1812 (on the eve of the invasion of russia)

you should also have the historical alliances, at least at start

You do not have to add anything to the game itself, just USE what you have built in to set it up.

Monkeymanbob
20th Jun 2005, 15:09
If it's been mentioned before then sincere apologies. But I would dearly love to be able to disable the time in multiplayer. When attacking t the defender already has one advantage, the time limit adds another rather unfair one.

Someone suggested a mulitplayer campaign, that would be cool, but would take an age to play.

Also the add a disengage feature (someone else mentioed this as well)

Is there an expansion pack being touted for the future? Anyone?

Skirmisher
20th Jun 2005, 23:25
Can't remember if this has been said before, but how about the starting point for armies in battles reflecting the direction they would be arriving from on the strategic map?

Also, upgrading a merchant port seems to have no effect on the trade that can go through it. As resources rarely allow building more than 1 or 2 merchant ships at a time, it never seems worth building and upgrading more than one merchant port.

moetman
21st Jun 2005, 02:32
Could we perhaps have an option somewhere to turn off Captain Obvious, that disembodied voice of your aide who must surely be a relative, since his pronouncements never fail to provoke disdain.

Just simply delete the Narrator Folder (or whatever it's called ) in the audio directory

:)

TheMick
22nd Jun 2005, 15:22
1-Yes i miss a pause and command
2- If you want my artillery then eat some canister ¡
3- Fog of war would have been fun and challenging.
4- Slow the units pace and compress the time.

Fiddlerpig
23rd Jun 2005, 21:31
I have a new complaint: historical accuracy.

Why can't I produce grenadiers, highlanders, cuirassiers, 12 pndrs, etc in 1790?

Why can't I produce ships-of-the-line and frigates in 1806?

Why is a whole line units massacred in under 4-6 volleys?

How come I can't have generals until the 1820s?

This is a Napoleonic war game, and we can't have the Imperial Guard until very late in the game?!! :mad:

What since does this make? Why did you implement these stupid rules????

Fix this please...

c-mattio
24th Jun 2005, 17:04
I have a new complaint: historical accuracy.

Why can't I produce grenadiers, highlanders, cuirassiers, 12 pndrs, etc in 1790?

Why can't I produce ships-of-the-line and frigates in 1806?

Why is a whole line units massacred in under 4-6 volleys?

How come I can't have generals until the 1820s?

This is a Napoleonic war game, and we can't have the Imperial Guard until very late in the game?!! :mad:

What since does this make? Why did you implement these stupid rules????

Fix this please...

Me thinks you miss the point. It is a computer game. In strategy games there is a progression from very basic to very good technology, from lower quality units to higher quality units. If you could simply build everything from the start then there would be less fun. Given that it is very difficult to effectively model all the intricacies of warfare in a computer game, sacrifices are made to allow for a fun progression through an interesting campaign. No it may not be historically accurate but it is fun. Thats the point of a computer game.

TheMick
24th Jun 2005, 17:57
- Make AI troops hold their ground, use the terrain and defend. (please dont charge my artillery again ¡ )

- If units were not always visible the need to produce hussars and make them recon the country will be a must (fight for information)

- I agree with the one who ask for armies arriving from different directions.

ArmoredCav
27th Jun 2005, 18:33
Hey everyone; I just bought IG and am really enjoying it. I'm gonna start playing online soon and hope to see some of you at GameSpy for a little gentleman's confrontation.

Anyway, here's my take on what about IG could be improved, after two weeks.

First, the game does a great job, for the most part, on balancing fun and realism. The game is a bit slow, at times, but most strategy games are. The graphics are great, and the mods should keep them interesting.

The little eccentricity of IG that I love most is the "no issue orders from pause" part of battles. This is the most critical realism part of the game. Is it hectic and difficult to fight a battle in real-time with no ability to pause, catch your breath, and issue a few orders? Yeah, it can be a pain. But, to win a real battle, you have to keep your enemy responding to you, not vice versa. If you do, you're dead. That's why the lack of paused commands is such a great touch. If you don't plan ahead, if you're not prepared for the terrain and the enemy, you are going to be overwhelmed. That's a great touch.

As far as things that SHOULD be changed; three relatively small changes would rectify most of the bizarre happenings people described. Musket power, especially for the upper-tier infantry units, should be beefed up. A single militia unit charging three or four infantry battalions across 50m of open terrain should be annihilated or forced to withdraw. Even a cavalry charge against alerted infantry units in lined formations is extraordinarily risky. If you send a Hussar battalion charging up a hill at a pair of grenzer battalions, lined and ready to fire, that Hussar unit shouldn't make it to the top of the hill. In the game as is, it does sometimes. Artillery fire is a little too finicky if you don't have commanders with experience to give them better accuracy, and that might do well from some tinkering as well.

The second addition, as many have suggested, is morale. Single units under fire from multiple enemies should withdraw, infantry in column under assault by cavalry from the flanks should retreat, and, most importantly, units being slaughtered, in any situation, should break ranks and flee. You don't have to do much, simply set a trigger for units to withdraw if under attack from a certain number of units, or having suffered a large number of casualties in a short period of time.


Finally, cavalry units MUST be able to withdraw from combat, if not decisively engaged. By "decisively engaged" I mean, ok, if they're surrounded on all sides by enemy infantry, they probably can't retreat. But cavalry is the precision weapon of the 19th century. Since the AI loves to bunch it's units together, cavalry needs to be able to charge in, inflict damage on a unit straying just a little too far from the herd (especially a howitzer unit plodding along), and dash out. They can be more vulnerable to musket fire when they retreat, but all that means is setting their armor rating lower as they retreat. I can't count how many times I sent my cavalry units in to isolate and destroy a single battalion or howitzer battery that was relatively isolated, but, despite outnumbering that unit 3 or 4 to 1, after destroying the enemy unit in question, they couldn't withdraw, and were forced to fight the enemy's main body.

Other than that, just a few other little things.

Countries should be harder to peacefully annex. It's just too easy, especially for the computer.

Naval Battles are fine; any more ships and they become wildly unmanageable.

The enemy should retreat from battle more often; that is, once a battle is underway, things can be going decisively against the computer, and rarely will they retreat. Also, if they DO, they shouldn't necessarily lose all their units. Any enemy unit not engaged in melee combat or under extreme artillery fire when the "retreat" button is pushed (or activated by the AI) should have a good shot at escape.

Some people have noted; on the higher difficulty levels, small countries annex the big ones. The simple answer is to change the starting army levels. The empires should have enough to cover their territories, and/or the small empires (Moldavia should NEVER be able to annex half of Russia in the first three turns) should start with fewer units. Perhaps the Ottomans or the Spanish, both of whom had respectable militaries in the Napoleonic era, could have comparable armies, but the Saxonies, Lombardies, and Moldavias shouldn't.

Finally, for those with no patience, there should be an option to play with a full tech-tree already researched, like in Age of Empires. It would be fun on occasion to start, right from 1789, churning out Highlanders, Household Cavalry, and ships of the line. Sometimes early battles between militias and line infantry just aren't very exciting.

The stuff for the strategy, "Risk"-like map are all small changes that would simply make the game a bit more fun.

The suggestions for the 3D RTS part of the game would, I believe, improve the gameplay by adding more value and weight to combat tactics. As it is, I can win most of my battles, even on medium or hard difficulty, with a mass cavalry charge. A battalion of Currasiers should NOT be able to charge a couple of prepared (and by prepared I mean in formation and in position) battalions of Tiralleuirs or Riflemen and win. This especially would make a difference in multiplayer; the best general should win, not the one who manages to launch the first massive charge.

My two cents, anyway. Thanks for giving me a chance to play this wonderful game. Kudos to the developers for a job well done.

deadboy10
27th Jun 2005, 18:50
I agrea with you, but the moral system needs to be small.
Wy you might ask? We dont want this game to go RTW style, where units rout and give the player adventage.
I would say, that they would ignore some orders like when they are under heavy fire they yust go back ( disorderly ).
Also i suggest ( for the expansion actually :) ), dividing all the lands in 2 parts a west and a south one.
Wy? Sometimes at large scale fighting it can get very boring to play on the same terrain.

ArmoredCav
27th Jun 2005, 18:52
The morale system would be very, very simple. It would just be 'triggers' built in to force units to retreat or flee if they were under fire from a certain number of units, or had taken a large number of casualties in short period of time.

Longstreet63
27th Jun 2005, 22:36
Armoredcav, your points are well taken, but I one or two points I take issue with: Musket power is actually too effective now, compared to reality. A Napoleonic era smoothbore musket was a monumentally inaccurate weapon. the person you point it at is about as safe as you are. That is precisely the reason that the tactics in use evolved. One needed a battalion sized line to have a hope of doing any real damage to an enemy formation. (The command was not to aim muskets, but to level them.) That is also why masses of skirmishers proved so effective--it's much easier to hit a line than for the line to hit many individual targets. It's also why the bayonet charge was alive and well. And why cavalry was so immensely dangerous.

Cav in this game is not actually overpowered. Squared infantry is fairly safe from them. The problem is that the square formation is not available until quite far into the game. Since it isn't available, cavalry seem all-powerful. They were. That's why the square was devised and why Napoleonic infantry went into it when they even suspected cavalry, no matter the damage from infantry and artillery they suffered when in it.

I, too wish cav at least had a disengage option, but in fairness, the reality was that charging cavalry were notoriously hard to recall. They were the single-shot precision weapon of the period.

LS

Element-UK
29th Jun 2005, 15:39
Make the 'HOLD Position' Command work please.