PDA

View Full Version : A question from a RTW "fanboy"



BattleKnight
21st May 2005, 19:59
Hi all,

I have been following IG for some time now. When the demo was released, I rushed to get it installed.
When I played it a couple of times, I uninstalled it. The controls were strange and the fact that I couldn't :
-tell men engaged in a melee to fall back
-tell my men EXACTLY where I want them
-pause the game AND give orders.

Have these things improved? If so, I might get this game. :)

Greetings,

BattleKnight

Silent_Scope
21st May 2005, 20:10
welcome to the napoleonic era mate, men fight untill they break it's realistic. RTW is fun but not realistic which is why i didnt buy it.

Queeg
21st May 2005, 20:48
Hi all,

I have been following IG for some time now. When the demo was released, I rushed to get it installed.
When I played it a couple of times, I uninstalled it. The controls were strange and the fact that I couldn't :
-tell men engaged in a melee to fall back
-tell my men EXACTLY where I want them
-pause the game AND give orders.

Have these things improved? If so, I might get this game. :)

Greetings,

BattleKnight

The battle controls at present are less refined than those for RTW. But the campaign game is far superior to RTW.

Thecrisis5
21st May 2005, 22:02
The camera controls in the full version are identical to those in RTW. And you would love this game if you liked MTW :)

Nahirean
21st May 2005, 22:41
This game destroys R:TW hands down when it comes to the 'strategy' aspect of it. There's just *SO MUCH MORE* tactical strategy involved on the campaign map compared to R:TW.

BattleKnight
22nd May 2005, 07:48
Okay, the campaign game is better. That's good. :)

Now, the controls? Still no pause AND give orders? And can you order your men to form a line? Can they 'hold ground', can they be prevented from moving?

Silent_Scope, if I'm not mistaken, a true charge was very rare in the Napoleonic Era. Most of the times, one side turned tail and fled. But, I did not see this in the demo. A unit of 5 brave men faced one of 30 men or so without questions! I find this to be unrealistic.

Just answer my questions quickly guys so I can rush to the store and buy the game! :)

Nahirean
22nd May 2005, 07:57
Okay, the campaign game is better. That's good. :)

Now, the controls? Still no pause AND give orders? And can you order your men to form a line? Can they 'hold ground', can they be prevented from moving?

Silent_Scope, if I'm not mistaken, a true charge was very rare in the Napoleonic Era. Most of the times, one side turned tail and fled. But, I did not see this in the demo. A unit of 5 brave men faced one of 30 men or so without questions! I find this to be unrealistic.

Just answer my questions quickly guys so I can rush to the store and buy the game! :)

Honestly, if you're in it for the R:TW style cinematic battles you may be disappointed. This is a true strategy game. R:TW isn't, in my opinion. The strategy is DEEP. I played for literally 6 hours without having 1 battle. In my current game, we just got over a world war which resulted in the destruction of Austria (and my annexation, muahaha.) and NO countries are eager to fight. There's been peace now for 5+ hours.

The battles are fun, but they aren't portrayed as "epicly" as R:TW. If you want R;TW with guns, this is not for you.

Silent_Scope
22nd May 2005, 10:24
yeah, and the fact a group charged with 5 men i havent had as my units with 5 men run at them, see their size and retreat.

Smirnov
22nd May 2005, 16:01
I still like how you can move units around the map in R:TW as opposed to this game.. I could remain in one territory and evade an army for years in R:TW :). Plus big provinces actually meant longer move times :D

But anyways, R:TW stands for total WAR, so it's obvious that the war-part of it should be better.

Silent_Scope
22nd May 2005, 17:20
yeah, you needd tactics in battle alot more to.

jam_man
23rd May 2005, 10:46
This game destroys R:TW hands down when it comes to the 'strategy' aspect of it. There's just *SO MUCH MORE* tactical strategy involved on the campaign map compared to R:TW.

Not in my opinion its shallow in comparison.

Diplomacy is the only part that is better than RTW the rest is like a dumbed down version.

The map is too basic, you can do too little in your provinces. I found it pretty dull pretty quick.


The game looks good, just doesnt back it up enough for my liking.

jam_man
23rd May 2005, 10:48
welcome to the napoleonic era mate, men fight untill they break it's realistic. RTW is fun but not realistic which is why i didnt buy it.

Romans used to break frequently from melee to allow refreshed troops to take their place, or to encourage the enemy to advance into strategic "traps".

And fight till they break ? Do me a favour, in IG they fight till wiped out. Not seen one unit rout or run yet.

IG has either no or little fatigue/morale whatsoever.

Realism. Hmmn.

The Danes Tordenskjold
23rd May 2005, 17:54
The game has great posibilities in the on-line play if they incoporate moral/routing - And change the setup in 2 vs 2 to allow each man to buy and command his own army. Do this and Edios and the game will c glory times on-line. Its a shame if this great game falls into the darkness caused by these blunders.

n0z3k1ll3r
24th May 2005, 10:01
I like the lack of morale... it's a refreshing change. How many games of R:TW or M:TW devolved into "kill their general and their army is useless".

McCain
24th May 2005, 10:15
I like the lack of morale... it's a refreshing change. How many games of R:TW or M:TW devolved into "kill their general and their army is useless".
I like morale, its more realistic. But I have to agree with you about Generals, I won battles in R:TW that I should have lost by killing the Armies General, and making the units flee. I still would have liked to atleast see a Army Commander on the field, or atleast officers mixed in with the troops for Imperial Glory.

jam_man
24th May 2005, 12:55
I like the lack of morale... it's a refreshing change. How many games of R:TW or M:TW devolved into "kill their general and their army is useless".


Yes the general didnt protect himself very well in RTW and that did let some of the battles down.

However morale is a key component of any battle and it should be included in IG.

Without morale it restricst the tactical options you have.

sick
24th May 2005, 14:58
I like the lack of morale... it's a refreshing change. How many games of R:TW or M:TW devolved into "kill their general and their army is useless".

In IG it's more like "kill their artillery and their army is useless." :D

n0z3k1ll3r
25th May 2005, 02:46
I think morale should be a bit more restrained than in TW anyway. The armies of the period are by and large elite professional armies, and aren't going to run easily (militia obviously being an exception). Maybe instead of routing they should fall back and regroup a short distance away, sort of like what cavalry does sometimes when charging squares.

Lssjmic
25th May 2005, 18:27
welcome to the napoleonic era mate, men fight untill they break it's realistic. RTW is fun but not realistic which is why i didnt buy it.

There is a secret move, mastered over the years, its called retreating. Men who were ordered to fall back did so, would you stay in a losing battle against orders? Plus rtw is extremly realistic, you can order straight away mainly because back then, the generals where IN the battles.

Sotos
25th May 2005, 20:41
There is a secret move, mastered over the years, its called retreating. Men who were ordered to fall back did so, would you stay in a losing battle against orders? Plus rtw is extremly realistic, you can order straight away mainly because back then, the generals where IN the battles.

a) Retreating exists also in IG in the ESC menu
You will not see your Units retreat in real time as it is with Rome TW but it will stop your game Battle and in the Game menu Score will tell how many men you lost during retreat, It is just more statistical than real time

b) During Ancient times yes i guess there was always a General or a King in the Battle so yes Rome TW is Historical accurate in that
BUT
in Napoleon Era Generals and High ranking officers were not going to battles
they were sitting behind Battle lines planning the attacks and the Strategy needed for placing the troops
So IG is Historical accurate too for NOT having Generals among the Troops figting

wolfetone
25th May 2005, 20:51
a) Retreating exists also in IG in the ESC menu
You will not see your Units retreat in real time as it is with Rome TW but it will stop your game Battle and in the Game menu Score will tell how many men you lost during retreat, It is just more statistical than real time

b) During Ancient times yes i guess there was always a General or a King in the Battle so yes Rome TW is Historical accurate in that
BUT
in Napoleon Era Generals and High ranking officers were not going to battles
they were sitting behind Battle lines planning the attacks and the Strategy needed for placing the troops
So IG is Historical accurate too for NOT having Generals among the Troops figting


That is not entirely true, for instance there were several Commanders killed or lost arms, legs, etc in various engagements during the era. There were several of Napoleon's commanders noted for their personal bravery in engagements. Also, command HQ were (and always have been) legitimate targets of the enemy.

(I know I'm generalzing here but I don't have time right now to flip through history books to verify exact dates and times. Commanders served as a source of inspiration for troops during battle. Why not reflect that here. And I'm about to go off on a tangent, but I would love to see a game incorporate unit order changes (for some distant part of the battlefield) by requiring aides to be dispatched to "change" orders. But that's all beside the point. Besides, if you don't want to use your commander on the field, park his behind WAY WAY WAY behind the front lines.

Hannibal-Sun
26th May 2005, 00:56
Any of you tried the abandon command?

Check it and report in.

Take care.

Hannibal S

Smirnov
28th May 2005, 22:47
Funny how whenever I pressed retreat before the enemy was able to inflict casualties on me (but I was able to kill about 70 of them) I never lost anyone unless they chased me successfully post-battle... hmm...

yakult
31st May 2005, 04:49
(I know I'm generalzing here but I don't have time right now to flip through history books to verify exact dates and times. Commanders served as a source of inspiration for troops during battle. Why not reflect that here.

"Not the least of his qualities as a commander was that Napoleon possessed a remarkable ability to inspire his troops and was rewarded with unquestioned obedience. Morale was aided by the system of promotion through the ranks on merit rather than seniority or social status..." McKay, Derek and H. M. Scott. The Rise of the Great Powers, 1648-1815. London; Longman, 1983, pp 314.

Not a very good one, but still shows its existence and effect. I think military ingenuity of leaders such as Napoleon & Wellesley displays the undisputed importance/significance of a good general in the period. Since we cannot REALLY FULLY utilise tactics like the reverse-slope tactic, this should be indirectly implemented by the troops being enhanced when under a talented general.