PDA

View Full Version : OT: Imperial Glory!



iakovos
21st May 2005, 16:19
Imperial Glory was just released these past few days.
Will anyone try this game?
The specs for it are enormous btw but this seems to be the norm for every game these days.

OPERATING SYSTEM:
Microsoft Windows 2000/Windows XP (admin rights required)
(Windows 95/98/ME/NT not supported)
CPU:
Pentium 3 1.0GHz (or AthlonXP equivalent)
RAM:
256MB System Memory
GRAPHICS:
100% DirectX 9 compatible 64MB Direct3D Card (GeForce 3/Radeon 8500+)
SOUND:
100% DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card
OPTICAL DRIVE:
8x speed CD-ROM drive (for CD versions)
-or-
DVD-ROM drive (for DVD versions)
HARD DRIVE:
2.5GB free disk space
INPUT DEVICES:
Keyboard and Mouse

Note: Laptops & Integrated graphic cards may function but are not
supported.

RECOMMEND SPEC:
CPU:
Pentium IV 2.0GHz (or AthlonXP/64 equivalent)
RAM:
512MB System Memory
GRAPHICS:
100% DirectX 9 compatible 128MB Direct3D Card with Pixel Shader 2.0
support (GeForce 6 Series/Radeon X series)
OPTICAL DRIVE:
DVD-ROM drive
INTERNET:
LAN and Broadband Internet play supported.

I wonder if something similar will be required for CSF.

Iakovos:)

Mike_B
27th May 2005, 16:06
I'll pick it up later on when I have a bit more time to fully enjoy it.

As for the spec CSF uses a different engine so it's hard to tell.

iakovos
4th Jun 2005, 16:16
I am posting here several thoughts on the game taken from the strategy and commandos ngs.

"I find the graphics just as good as RTW.

What I don't like about IG (even though it is in most respects a fine game)
are the following:

- lack of speed slider - it can take ages for your troops to cross the
battlefield
- actual combat needs slowing down, I agree
- 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 bonus from using the high ground (huh?!)
- as far as I can see you can't see what troops you have loaded into a ship,
meaning relying on memory (or guesswork)
- the interface for moving troops around the campaign map and for building
regiments is needlessly complex and very clunky (horrible, in fact)
- why only 3 regiments per province??
- only one battlefield per province (therefore totally different to RTW) -
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. But no, a few turns later, the Brits somehow
assembled a new defence force for England 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. WFT???!!! This is obviously an insane
situation.
- 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 helpful if a bubble message appeared telling you why you
cannot land your men in a particular province from a ship

There are probably more, but these are the ones I can think of for now."

"I do not like most rts games. IG is alot like total war. I love it.
It's not quite as polished as TW but close."

"Got a right slagging off in this months PC Gamer along the lines of
action is far too quick (original Rome Total War anyone?) and battles are over in seconds. I know RTW was bad as well but since it was released it has been
slowed to acceptable by the various mods. Presently I wont buy the game as
I hate RTS clickfests but if it gets a slow down mod I might consider it. I
was very interested in the game and this got me worried - I just knew
something was going to spoil it. Happens every time these days it seems.
Publishers are to blame IMO having too much say on how a game should play
and essentially ruining it. Whatever happens to good, solid, properly
tested games properly designed for their target market?"

"You are right about Imperial Glory - battles are way too quick. Graphics
are not nearly as good as RTW. To me, it was disappointing."

"The battles are somewhat disappointing. More than just the speed
issue, there's also the fact that there is no morale. No routing.
Units fight to the last man at all times. Personally, this bothers me
more than the speed does because it really destroys all sense of
realism. On the plus side, it has a nice tactical naval combat system.

The good news is the strategic/campaign level game is excellent. It
plays out on a boardgame-like map with movement and management at a
provincial level similar to MTW, which I personally preferred to RTW's
underdeveloped "Civ-lite" style. IG has a full tech tree divided into
3 eras, Wonders of the World aka "Quests", a detailed system of
commercial trade (also similar to MTW's but deeper), and what I believe
is IG's crowning jewel -- the best diplomacy I've ever seen in any
strategy game I've played before.

With RTW people said you could play the strategic level part as a game
itself and ignore the tactical battles. I never really believed that.
But with IG I think it is true."

Iakovos:)