PDA

View Full Version : Is this the best that eidos can do ?



whartanto
4th Jun 2005, 14:53
I played Imperial glory for a short while - I must say that this game has disappointed me.

It does not even come close to Medieval Total War, let alone Rome Total War.

With maximum units of 9 (3 captains, with 3 units each) per map - it just does not match my imagination of what an epic battles in that age should be.

Napoleon played with the lives of 100,000 of men, we got to play with 450 units ...

The game feels like a simplified MTW, with so few territories to fight for. The options for upgrades limited to tech research (which is also restricting, you have to follow a very simplified research tree with no option of customizing your nation's competence)

It has great graphics, but it's just not the epic game that RTW is. Imperial Glory is a step back in gameplay.

Benj
4th Jun 2005, 15:23
The maximum units on each side per battle is 18 not 9...... :rolleyes:

Queeg
4th Jun 2005, 16:34
Not to start an IG vs. TW argument, but since you brought it up, I'll throw in my two cents....

I liked MTW very much, but hated RTW. RTW was a big step backward from MTW in every possible way, with the exception of pretty graphics (complete with Brad Pitt-like jumpers) and a strategic map with nice tactical elements like passes and river crossings (which the AI, unfortunately, never took advantage of). The RTW campaign was mind-numbingly sterile and repetitive, even silly (the pointless busy-work missions from the Senate, for example) - little more than a veneer to string together a series of uninspiring tactical battles (where the AI never stood a chance at odds less than 3 to 1.)

IG offers a far superior campaign, full of strategic choices that really matter. The battle maps are much nicer than RTW and the battles overall every bit as good looking. The battles themselves defintely need work, but the AI is a much better challenge. I've already lost more battles in IG than I ever did in RTW.

So, it does depend on your tastes.

whartanto
4th Jun 2005, 22:03
Strange, because i found RTW to be a very good game - you might find the AI a bit easy , but then the whole game is skewed towards Roman factions favor in term of units' strength.

But dividing the map into CIV like areas open opportunities for tactics - where as i find there is limited options in IG , it's like the developer is telling me "do it this way" or "if you play this country, you have to do it this way".

I don't know how it can be 18 per side (perhaps in 2nd or 3rd era technology ,every captain can have 6 units ?).

IG is a very easy game to manage in early stages - which lead to most turn being a step like "do we have new tech ? if no, then press next turn"

I can't see much strategy either - the AI at early stages are basically doing a strategy that consists of building as much militia as they can and do melee rush. When i locked up my troops in a building, they actually circle around it, and enter the building one by one - somehow i just feel like idiots - why on earth units with no ranged attack circled around defensive troops with guns ( i presume this is because their AI can only handle one order : charge my troops, and because i am holed up, only 1 troop can enter the house at one time).

It will be nice to have tactical options like "dig in" (that i heard exists in cossacks 2) , Wellington used a long line of layers defense against Napoleon in waterloo, where as in IG i can't set the depth of the line nor can i dig trenches in areas that the developer didn't provide for.

I feel so stiffled playing this. There is only one tech tree, there is only few defensive positions, there is only one area representing the whole england (4 areas for the whole UK, 5 areas for France) , i can't feel like i outmanouvered my enemies, gained local superiority in force, take the high ground in northern france, use flanking moves , etc ,etc.

(not a big fan of history, but more epic and strategy will be nice)

Benj
4th Jun 2005, 22:32
I do agree with you mostly. Just stating things that are wrong is a bit annoying.

As you progress up the research tree or as your leaders gain more battle experience you gain access to Colonels (4 units), Generals (5 units) and Field Marshalls (6 Units).

Ryoken
4th Jun 2005, 22:55
Technically, if you had 4 marshals one could be reinforcements; thus a theoretical maximum of 24 units x 60 soldiers = 1440 soldiers

Yorkie
5th Jun 2005, 04:04
The maximum units on each side per battle is 18 not 9...... :rolleyes:

He obviously hasnt played the game for more that 10mins :)


(complete with Brad Pitt-like jumpers)


I thought they suited em :D

whartanto
5th Jun 2005, 10:35
lol :)

True, i might have to play until third era before i can get an objective picture. Not to take away anything from IG - it has good diplomatic options and controlling wide empire is much easier than RTW , and it has good graphics.

But it also lacked depth, a very simplistic game. Nowhere near RTW, and certainly not something that I expect from game created 1 year after.

I played Hearts of Iron for much longer than i can spend playing IG - there is just much more things i can do with a simple 2D, turn based game compared to this "state of the art" game .

imperialus
5th Jun 2005, 14:16
RTW is difficult and complex? Only if you leave it running on your computer 24/7 without saving so as not to take advantage of the "feature" that causes all sieges to break after reloading. Or how about the protectorate bug?

Sure some defensive abilities would be nice but how to balance them? Could you dig a trench during a battle and have some goofy little animation of guys with spades digging a 5 foot trench in 30 or 40 seconds? Or would the defender have to set them up in advance? Yes, trench works did exist during the Napoleonic wars but they were by no means what one could call extensive usually consisting of nothing more than a slit trench or a palisade to provide protection to the artillery. Trenches weren’t seen as particularly viable military options until the American Civil War where the south in particular became quite adapt at digging in.

I don't see what your problem is with provincial divides? STW, MTW and RTW all had them the only difference is RTW armies could be placed in various parts in a province, I believe someone else already pointed out this was a moot point anyhow since the AI never took advantage of fords, passes or whatnot.

I found myself railroaded along much more in RTW, between the stupid senate missions (jump through the hoop, good dog! have a cookie!) which would muck up my alliances and generally just piss me off to the silly bugs (cough I mean features), I mean towards the end of the game I could usually only fit in one turn a night, the next day I would load my game and all the siege fairies would come along and relive my poor citizens, good for them, crappy for me.

Queeg
6th Jun 2005, 00:59
I also found little that was really challenging in the RTW campaign. Just a matter of taste, of course.

The seige bug was a killer, though.

OracleX
6th Jun 2005, 03:52
This game is just horrible. I can't believe I actually looked forward to playing it. I didn't expect it to outshine RTW but DAMN, even STW has better depth and battle management.


Here's a list of what's REALLY REALLY wrong:

1) Why does every battle end with 90% casualty rate on both sides? I fought a pitched battle with 3 squads of Line Inf against 3 squads of pissy little militia men and although I won, more than half of my troops are dead and the next enemy counter attack wiped me out. I got off about 2-3 volleys that killed a handful before they charged into my lines and that was that. So basicly the bigger army wins just about every time unless you have far superior troops and technology.


2) Why do troops fight to the death? Seriously, losing half of their infantry before they even made it to my lines doesn't faze the enemy at all. They just keep on fighting until they're all dead. Who's bright idea was it to exclude morale effect?


4) Why aren't there options to hold fire or stand your ground or rifles only? How freaking hard can it be to put in those options? Hell even a retard RTS game like Red Alert has it, yet every time the enemy come close to melee range, the unit just charges out and leave a gap in my lines so wide the Titanic would fit into it.



Say what you want about RTW, but that game had just about everything. It's rich in detail and authencity. There's unit balance and every factor from height, weather, weapon rating, experience, morale etc etc are factored in. The battles were a beauty to play, and a good strategist can easily beat greater numbers by playing his cards right. In IG, as soon as two armies close on each other, it's out of your hands. No formation, no tactics can help you.

Mike_B
6th Jun 2005, 05:32
4) Why aren't there options to hold fire or stand your ground or rifles only? How freaking hard can it be to put in those options? Hell even a retard RTS game like Red Alert has it, yet every time the enemy come close to melee range, the unit just charges out and leave a gap in my lines so wide the Titanic would fit into it.

Someone found a hold ground command do a search for it in the Technical discussion part of the forum.

Benj
6th Jun 2005, 11:31
Someone found a hold ground command do a search for it in the Technical discussion part of the forum.

Yes, but why should it be up to us to hunt through endless files to find things that aren't included in the ui?

OracleX
6th Jun 2005, 11:44
The click and drag formation setting is also vastly inferior to that of RTW.

Lt. Kyuzo
6th Jun 2005, 13:14
with the hold ground key(s) wasnt that not put in the game after?

Kokopelli
6th Jun 2005, 16:43
How about whoever knows what the key is, elighten those of us who don't know, so we don't have to sift through several pages to find it?

joxer31
6th Jun 2005, 17:16
hold position = ctrl+alt+ h
def stance = ctrl+alt+p
off stance = ctrl+alt+o

Have tried them and the do work.

Be aware:
The def stance will act more like a skirmish effect. Troops will fire and then retreat if the enemy gets too close.

Off stance will have your units fire until the enemy gets too close then close to melee action.

Kokopelli
6th Jun 2005, 17:49
Thank you kindly good sir.

Queeg
6th Jun 2005, 21:32
I definitely agree that the battles are more chaotic in IG than in RTW. Much of that could be changed by slowing down the battles, which I hope the patch will do.

But, as I've spent more time with the game, I'm enjoying the battles more. I've found that it's critically important to use the grouping keys to set hotkeys for your units. I've also found that it's often best to use more of the map, to stretch the field a bit. My initial approach when I first started playing IG was to group all my units togther in a tight formation, like in RTW. But as I've played through more battles, I've found that it's really useful, for example, to use cavalry far out in advance of my main force - to screen and distract the enemy or to shoo enemy cavalry away from my artillery. Placing some of my artillery on the flanks of my main force, perhaps on a hill screened by cavalry, often prevents the enemy from focusing its efforts on all my artillery at once - and if I set them with overlapping fields of fire, I can get in some pretty good shots before the enemy can concentrate on them.

I'm far from an expert, but I do find that there are many different strategies that can work. And that you can't fight all battles the same way. Compared to RTW, where I found the battles very easy to win right from the first time I played, I'm enjoying the learning curve in IG. My enjoyment of battles in RTW decreased over time. With IG, it's increasing.

Billy Fish
12th Jun 2005, 13:29
This game is just horrible. I can't believe I actually looked forward to playing it. I didn't expect it to outshine RTW but DAMN, even STW has better depth and battle management.


Here's a list of what's REALLY REALLY wrong:

1) Why does every battle end with 90% casualty rate on both sides? I fought a pitched battle with 3 squads of Line Inf against 3 squads of pissy little militia men and although I won, more than half of my troops are dead and the next enemy counter attack wiped me out. I got off about 2-3 volleys that killed a handful before they charged into my lines and that was that. So basicly the bigger army wins just about every time unless you have far superior troops and technology.


2) Why do troops fight to the death? Seriously, losing half of their infantry before they even made it to my lines doesn't faze the enemy at all. They just keep on fighting until they're all dead. Who's bright idea was it to exclude morale effect?


I agree with Oracle on these two points. I have serious problems with militia having what appears to be almost parity in melee capabilities with line troops. It almost makes having line infantry pointless considering the cost.

As for morale, again, excellent point and drives home his first complaint on militia vs line. I had two line infantry drive home two volleys into a charging militia unit, dropping almost a 1/4 of them and yet without wavering, slammed into the one line unit causing almost 50% casulaties. Are these line infantry or the Iraqi National Guard?

If the patch fixes anything, it has to address at least these two combat flaws,

Oststar
14th Jun 2005, 07:35
I agree with Oracle on these two points. I have serious problems with militia having what appears to be almost parity in melee capabilities with line troops. It almost makes having line infantry pointless considering the cost.

Yeah... Pyro please explain why three foot of club beats five foot musket with blade?


As for morale, again, excellent point and drives home his first complaint on militia vs line. I had two line infantry drive home two volleys into a charging militia unit, dropping almost a 1/4 of them and yet without wavering, slammed into the one line unit causing almost 50% casulaties. Are these line infantry or the Iraqi National Guard?

morale needs inclusion... badly... it needs a little bar like health and sails on ships, that goes down strongly to skirmishers and when at zero the unit falls back. This would depend on where fire is coming from etc etc. When the unit breaks, like after a failed charge in appearance, you shouldn't be able to control it. But I stress that people should push for morale in 1.2 and simpler things in 1.1

OH and what's meant by the ING comment? Do you mean ING are all cowards?

WindOfChange
26th Jun 2005, 19:50
IG should have done what TW did; there is only one map per capital or province. It didn't really mattered if the troops were in garrison or not: you would still played the same map. It really gets boring, espicially when sieging the empire's capitals. I say there should've been a field map and the city maps for capitals. And instead of waiting for other's turn: why not continue the battle from the field military to the garrisons. It can really save sometime and be more enjoyable.

The animation also irritated me. Not the graphics but the actions. When you are in the square formation and the enemy charges against you, the unit simply seems like a porcupine. They simply stand still and stiff as the enemy jumps on them. NO ACTIONs eg stabbing was presented.

In the Russian territories: is it me or the weather and climate hardly do anything against the military forces' strength.