PDA

View Full Version : to pyro studios



revolution74
25th May 2005, 08:47
Great strategy section game.
Worse tactical section I've ever seen.

Please solve these 4 major bugs and we'll have a very nice and realistic game!

1) Increase artillery fire range
2) giving orders in pause
3) Morale
4) Ships must not exit from map

We will wait for the patch and we will hail you if you solve these bugs

Always leading the charge
Europe forever

CrossWire
25th May 2005, 09:08
Hehe, sounds like a rewrite of the game to me.

1. Don't agree, range is fine any greater and it would end up guy with most arty wins.

2. Agree, or at least be able to check units and stuff while paused.

3. Dunno 50/50 on that, I kind of like them fighting to the death, the running off got real boring in RTW.

4. I Most defiantly 100% gold plated arse burning sonic blasting agree on this.

jaywalker2309
25th May 2005, 09:17
Great strategy section game.
Worse tactical section I've ever seen.

Please solve these 4 major bugs and we'll have a very nice and realistic game!

1) Increase artillery fire range
2) giving orders in pause
3) Morale
4) Ships must not exit from map

We will wait for the patch and we will hail you if you solve these bugs

Always leading the charge
Europe forever

1) Increasing will unbalance the game too much i believe.
2) I know some users like this, but some users dont. Pyro wanted their own game, not a `RTW clone` which guarenteed if was in the game would have been what was said. Altho i do agree IF it was possible having the choice it would be nice.
3) Agree it could be tweaked a little better, but again not to the extent of `Run away, he's got a towel` (fans of HitchHikers guide to galaxy will know what i mean)
4) Definitely agree here, shouldnt be easy to `lose` a ship at all.

Will be passing this info onto the dev team

Gelatinous Cube
25th May 2005, 09:34
Adding pause & command wouldnt be creating an RTW clone. The complexity of the diplomacy, economy, and general mechanics of the campaign map already set the game apart from (and in my opinion, ahead of) RTW. The first game to actually implement pause & command, that I know of, was Baldur's Gate. It's an essential feature for keeping things in order. If not for the land battles, at least for the ship battles.

But quite honestly, aside from that and fixing bugs (such as the bad menu performance, and enemies not garrisoning buildings, which are both major problems for me), don't change a thing! Don't fix what ain't broke ;)

Nastavnik
25th May 2005, 09:38
What about restricting the view in the battlefield? I didn't get the impression that you could hide troups in anyway, not using terrain, not behin trees. So no way to surprise an enemy. That's a pity. (unless it is just me who didn't find out how to do it)

CrossWire
25th May 2005, 09:47
What about restricting the view in the battlefield? I didn't get the impression that you could hide troups in anyway, not using terrain, not behin trees. So no way to surprise an enemy. That's a pity. (unless it is just me who didn't find out how to do it)

That has to be wrong I often have hid my troops behind mountains and obstacles without the enemy apparently noticing, then on the enemy advance I have been able to hit them from the flanks and rear.

one more thing for your list revolution74.
5. Slow land battles down, so we get to see all the decapitations.

revolution74
25th May 2005, 09:49
Ah, guys!

You don't agree with my modification wish of artillery range....
In 19th century, Cannons and howitzer were the key of winning a battle.
Waterloo...Napoleon had artillery advantage (number of cannons) and victory was at hand. But it began to rain....The mud in the field made difficult moving artillery...and when he gave the order to attack, cannonballs don't rebound and they lose their destruction power.

Artillery was more important than men, guys.
The one who have more cannons (not only cannons, of couse!), he must win

Nastavnik
25th May 2005, 10:09
That has to be wrong I often have hid my troops behind mountains and obstacles without the enemy apparently noticing, then on the enemy advance I have been able to hit them from the flanks and rear.


I stand corrected. Will try again.

On the speed thing, it is a bit tedious to wait for your troops to get to the battle area. And then it is a bit tedious because all goes too fast. I tried the controls in the option panel with no noticeable difference. At least in RTW there was a slider so at very fast your men would race through the battlefield and then you could slow way down in order to manage more preciselly you men. That would be helpfull in cases where the computer won't attack and you have to wait 30 minutes (real time) to have the battle resolved.

I agree on the range thing. Couldn't all weapons have their range increased? It would remain balanced overall but when the guys with a stick start running towards me, my troops barelly have the time to fire a volley. Same for the canons. Maybe increase range and decrease accuracy (they weren't smartbombs back then, and even today smart bombs are still pretty dumb ;) )

Freakk
25th May 2005, 10:43
Ah, guys!

You don't agree with my modification wish of artillery range....
In 19th century, Cannons and howitzer were the key of winning a battle.
Waterloo...Napoleon had artillery advantage (number of cannons) and victory was at hand. But it began to rain....The mud in the field made difficult moving artillery...and when he gave the order to attack, cannonballs don't rebound and they lose their destruction power.

Artillery was more important than men, guys.
The one who have more cannons (not only cannons, of couse!), he must win
Its a game, Arty is fine as it is if it gets more range it will get boring seeing men getting owned over and over again

revolution74
25th May 2005, 10:54
Its a game, Arty is fine as it is if it gets more range it will get boring seeing men getting owned over and over again

We are talking about simulations, strategy games historical based.
Not about children games!

Psychonaut
25th May 2005, 10:56
jaycw2309,
Your statement "I know some users like this, but some users don’t" is a non issue like I said in my reply to you in this thread (bottom of page)

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=50696


If Pause/command would have been added all parties would have been pleased, being as how the players who don't like it would not have used it, as it is the others have been shut out.
Some people would have called it a RTW clone not for that one Pause/Command issue (personally I doubt that would have entered anyone’s mind in the comparison being as how its such a common feature), but for the whole format of the game, Strategic map with buildings, diplomacy etc, and the actual battle map and things like taht.


Furthermore and most importantly, I'm sure you have read all the posts concerning Pause/command and you can clearly see that this is an overwhelming request on this board, if not the single most requested.

King Rich
25th May 2005, 12:05
Ah, guys!

You don't agree with my modification wish of artillery range....
In 19th century, Cannons and howitzer were the key of winning a battle.
Waterloo...Napoleon had artillery advantage (number of cannons) and victory was at hand. But it began to rain....The mud in the field made difficult moving artillery...and when he gave the order to attack, cannonballs don't rebound and they lose their destruction power.

Artillery was more important than men, guys.
The one who have more cannons (not only cannons, of couse!), he must win

This is true and i do agree 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. But I also had one squad Grenadier Guards against 2 squads of howitsers, i hid just over the horrizon of a hill and as sooon as they could see me, I CHARGED, they never stood a chance. :D

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:

GenMoore
25th May 2005, 12:24
Might have been better to have this thread in the Bug fixing sticky.

Lots of good points here. :D

Sharpe
25th May 2005, 15:36
wrong, wrong , wrong.
If you read Sharpe's Tiger, you'll see that in India, the Tippoo Sultan thought cannons were more important than men and had loads and loads of cannons...he lost. That is not fictional.


Ah, guys!

You don't agree with my modification wish of artillery range....
In 19th century, Cannons and howitzer were the key of winning a battle.
Waterloo...Napoleon had artillery advantage (number of cannons) and victory was at hand. But it began to rain....The mud in the field made difficult moving artillery...and when he gave the order to attack, cannonballs don't rebound and they lose their destruction power.

Artillery was more important than men, guys.
The one who have more cannons (not only cannons, of couse!), he must win

Queeg
25th May 2005, 15:44
I'd like to see the artillery range lengthened, but with reduced effectiveness. Artillery effectiveness seems perfect at the ranges currently allowed, but I do wish I could take at least a few longer range shots at an advancing enemy, albeit at reduced effectiveness.

Shadowknight
25th May 2005, 15:45
cannons against cavalry lol, i feel sorry for the men manning the cannons.

Poland
25th May 2005, 15:53
Pause and Command has been around for years, it is a standard of games such as: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Rise of Nations, Age of Empires, Baldur's Gate (as mentioned in earlier post) and Warhammer: Dawn of War.

To me this functionality is core to tactical and strategic planning. If I want to time a cavalry charge from the flanks or set pickets/skirmishers then it is critical to pause and issue orders or new waypoints. In a battle last night between England and France in a raining, hilly map the enemy split forces and hit me from the NE and NW, there was no way I could keep track of my forces, before I knew it my entire left flank was gone.

Yes, a slider to slow down the combat would be invaluable also, but that alone would not diminish the need for "pause and command".

"Disengage" units from melee is also critical. Right now if I send cavalry into an enemy rush they are effectively dead, since they will fight to the death, inevitably another enemy unit will pile on and my cav unit will be destroyed. But all I wanted to do was "hit and fade".

Nial
25th May 2005, 18:19
Well.......I agree...with all to an extent.

1) increase slightly. But slowing the inf. movement down would also help this, as cannons and inf defenders would then have more time to fire at oncomming troops.

2) Agree totaly........nough said

3)Some tweaking of the moral is critical in my opinion.

4) While a nuisance, not critical if you had item #2

revolution74
26th May 2005, 07:33
wrong, wrong , wrong.
If you read Sharpe's Tiger, you'll see that in India, the Tippoo Sultan thought cannons were more important than men and had loads and loads of cannons...he lost. That is not fictional.

of course...but I've written "not only cannons!"...
But if you want my opinion...dont' read novels...It's better a good militar book of strategies, like this of Von Clausewitz! Sharpe's tiger....bah!

FEARLESS
26th May 2005, 12:57
Increase the range of all weapons this is a MUST!.................further the range the less kills. The nearer they get.............. then let hell break loose! That seems pretty like what it must have been then! Maybe reload times would have to alter as it would have been in Napoleonic times. That's my tuppence worth!