PDA

View Full Version : I'm sorry, but it has to be said....



Broadcast
14th Jun 2005, 18:01
That the battle module in this game, is just pathetic... Fields of Glory from Microprose is far superior even though the game is over TWELVE years old. How can a game from 12 years ago be vastly superior to this?

Some glaring differences between the two:

1. It didn't feel at all like a grand napoleonic scale battle, it felt more like a skirmish. In Fields of Glory, whole armies are depicted grandly with unit names accurate down to individual brigades. It actually felt like you were commanding a battle with thousands of men.

2. In Fields of Glory, an infantry unit in column formation would break and run in the face of a cavalry charge or in Square formation, it would defeat a cavalry charge. Here they just stand still and enter into melee until one side is completely wiped out.

3. Retreating units would sometimes reform but have lower morale and would be prone to retreat again easier. Which brings up another point, morale, which is non-existant in IG. Units fight to death, whereas in Fields of Glory, if 1 Infantry unit is under fire from 3, it will attempt to disengage or will break and run, and flanking actually works in FoG. Units will flee when they are being attacked from the flanks or rear. Infantry charges can be broken by massed cannon fire at close range.

4. Units can actually disengage.

5. There are accurate drum and horn calls in Fields of Glory when ordering units to attack, change formation, retreat etc etc. Much more accurate than the cheesy french accent shouting out orders in IG.

6. I am not sure about this, since I only just got the game today, but why can't I seem to storm occupied buildings? I can only fire at them until my ammo runs out...

7. No bayonet charges...

8. I am mystified by the fact that one flat land, as long as the enemy is range, I can have several units, one behind the other fire at the same target. I know they did this in individual units where each rank would kneel after firing to allow the next rank to fire, but this is ridiculous.

9. The naval module is sad and probably put in as a "value" added feature... the Ancient Art of War at Sea, or even Battleship is superior to this twitch module. There aren't any naval doctrines in this at all, ships just charge blindly at each other into a wild melee, when the should be forming into lines and exchanging broadsides, or having the opposing line trying to "Cross the T" or breaking through the opposing line.

Instead of wasting time and making everything look so pretty and ooh ahh... concentrate on making a GAME, not a eye candy show with napoleonic overtones... I'm sure players wouldn't mind taking a small hit in graphics quality in the name of showing thousands of troops and having more accurate combat rules.

To all of you who bought the game for the express purpose of wanting to command a grand army on the battlefield, don't waste your money, download DOSbox, find a copy of FoG and pass this up until someone comes along with a good mod.


Bitter that his money was wasted.

Nial
14th Jun 2005, 18:31
Hmm...First of all numbers 2, 6, and 7 are incorrect. But after one day how can you possibly have any idea what your talking about?

All your other points have been discussed at great lenth in this forum. See the patch thread if you don't believe me.

Normaly I would not answer a thread like this. But the fact that you have only had the game for a day begs for a response.

Maybe you should play for a few days and then come back with a less emotional post. Maybe find out a little more about the game before you post a rant thread? Have a nice day. :cool:

Broadside
14th Jun 2005, 19:54
:D :p If you like the pixellated piece of mush that is Fields of Glory good luck to you. Quite how you could find absorbing gameplay in something that looks like a colour blindness test gone wrong beats me. The unit sizes are way smaller than IG and you cannot even make out what the hell they are supposed to be when a person consists of 10 dots :D If you are desperately into retro games or have a crap vid card fair enough. By the way folks this is what Waterloo in Field of Glory looks like :D :D :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/1.gif

Kokopelli
14th Jun 2005, 19:57
:D :p If you like the pixellated piece of mush that is Fields of Glory good luck to you. Quite how you could find absorbing gameplay in something that looks like a colour blindness test gone wrong beats me. The unit sizes are way smaller than IG and you cannot even make out what the hell they are supposed to be when a person consists of 10 dots :D If you are desperately into retro games or have a crap vid card fair enough. By the way folks this is what Waterloo in Field of Glory looks like :D :D :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/1.gif

I think he was stating that flashy graphics are not always the best when the game play sucks. No, I am not slamming the game, just stating what I believe he was trying to communicate.

Broadside
14th Jun 2005, 20:05
Oh - don't worry - I know what he was trying to communicate, I just don't think FOG stacks up against IG in terms of gameplay OR visuals

Kokopelli
14th Jun 2005, 20:13
Well, I haven't played FOG, so I do not know about gameplay. I have however, played older versions of games that still beat their decendents by a longshot. Two titles in particular that I am thinking of, are the original Stronghold series and Lords of the Realm II. I anxiously waited for the release of the new versions only to be dissapointed with what I got. Hands down, the older versions of those games beat the current ones in terms of gameplay, by a long shot.

Broadside
14th Jun 2005, 20:22
Would have to agree on the Stronghold series, the latest game was a big letdown on the technical side of things in particular. My PC is no slouch and was way over the recommended specs for the game, but really chugged with poor FPS, even after the latest patch. Tons of people with 3GHz + machines had the same problem. I thought the gameplay was OK though after they got some of the more serious bugs sorted in the patches.

Eruan
14th Jun 2005, 21:50
Hmmm, is there a way to play Fields of Glory on XP? :confused: I have the game, but it says my extended memory is too low :confused: is there a way to install and run it, or does XP kill the old fun? :mad: Coz i really need to access the database of generals, that was excellent :thumbsup:

Fiddlerpig
15th Jun 2005, 00:30
The Napoleonic mod for Medieval Total war is loads better than Imperial Glory, which is sad because NTW is MOD whereas IG is a full retailed game.

Element-UK
15th Jun 2005, 00:42
The perfect game at the moment would be a cross between NAP(mtw mod), IG and Syd M's Gettysburg.

ps: the extended memory thing only came about in DOS games if I recall correctly ?

Captain.Crunch
15th Jun 2005, 00:42
That the battle module in this game, is just pathetic... Fields of Glory from Microprose is far superior even though the game is over TWELVE years old. How can a game from 12 years ago be vastly superior to this?

Some glaring differences between the two:

1. It didn't feel at all like a grand napoleonic scale battle, it felt more like a skirmish. In Fields of Glory, whole armies are depicted grandly with unit names accurate down to individual brigades. It actually felt like you were commanding a battle with thousands of men.

2. In Fields of Glory, an infantry unit in column formation would break and run in the face of a cavalry charge or in Square formation, it would defeat a cavalry charge. Here they just stand still and enter into melee until one side is completely wiped out.

3. Retreating units would sometimes reform but have lower morale and would be prone to retreat again easier. Which brings up another point, morale, which is non-existant in IG. Units fight to death, whereas in Fields of Glory, if 1 Infantry unit is under fire from 3, it will attempt to disengage or will break and run, and flanking actually works in FoG. Units will flee when they are being attacked from the flanks or rear. Infantry charges can be broken by massed cannon fire at close range.

4. Units can actually disengage.

5. There are accurate drum and horn calls in Fields of Glory when ordering units to attack, change formation, retreat etc etc. Much more accurate than the cheesy french accent shouting out orders in IG.

6. I am not sure about this, since I only just got the game today, but why can't I seem to storm occupied buildings? I can only fire at them until my ammo runs out...

7. No bayonet charges...

8. I am mystified by the fact that one flat land, as long as the enemy is range, I can have several units, one behind the other fire at the same target. I know they did this in individual units where each rank would kneel after firing to allow the next rank to fire, but this is ridiculous.

9. The naval module is sad and probably put in as a "value" added feature... the Ancient Art of War at Sea, or even Battleship is superior to this twitch module. There aren't any naval doctrines in this at all, ships just charge blindly at each other into a wild melee, when the should be forming into lines and exchanging broadsides, or having the opposing line trying to "Cross the T" or breaking through the opposing line.

Instead of wasting time and making everything look so pretty and ooh ahh... concentrate on making a GAME, not a eye candy show with napoleonic overtones... I'm sure players wouldn't mind taking a small hit in graphics quality in the name of showing thousands of troops and having more accurate combat rules.

To all of you who bought the game for the express purpose of wanting to command a grand army on the battlefield, don't waste your money, download DOSbox, find a copy of FoG and pass this up until someone comes along with a good mod.


Bitter that his money was wasted.

Did you break out of an assylum recently? :thumbsup: :D Give your mouth a rest mate and let your rear end do the work.

Captain.Crunch
15th Jun 2005, 00:43
:D :p If you like the pixellated piece of mush that is Fields of Glory good luck to you. Quite how you could find absorbing gameplay in something that looks like a colour blindness test gone wrong beats me. The unit sizes are way smaller than IG and you cannot even make out what the hell they are supposed to be when a person consists of 10 dots :D If you are desperately into retro games or have a crap vid card fair enough. By the way folks this is what Waterloo in Field of Glory looks like :D :D :D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/1.gif

What sort of a game is this……. Looks like a bloddy wall painting. :eek:

hawkkiwi
15th Jun 2005, 02:12
and there it was crap even way back then

Captain.Crunch
15th Jun 2005, 05:11
I honestly can’t believe you are trying to compare an old game like this to a new game with state of the art graphics… and you’re saying the old trashy game is better? Either your not all there pal or you’re just very old fashioned and love the old dos games.

What specs are you running? Old 486?

Eruan
15th Jun 2005, 13:59
Graphically Fields of Glory is of course poor, hello people, it's 1994. But the principle of gaming was in fact much better, and the battles were actually representing about 1500000 people on the screen :D Plus the generals all had a history database which was interesting to read. The gameplay was a lot better than in IG, the battles implemented morale, and troops would luckily reform in time before getting off the screen and running away forever. The commands weren't given any voices, instead accurate depictions of the trumpets of the times, which in IG is totally absent, there are no music pieces, only some generic ones that are so boring :mad:

The square formation was a proper box with the commander in the middle, not like in IG where it's a box of people :confused: the AI was pretty weak, but it was a good demonstration of how a Napoleonic game should be made nevertheless. Graphically, IG is very good, but needless to say, the long thread about the patch has all the good reasons really, IG is by all means not a perfect game at the moment :rolleyes:

Elkin
15th Jun 2005, 17:15
Wow, not seen FoG since the last century! I had so many fond memories aswell, unfortunately....its just been ruined by looking at the screen shot. Wow, that looks bad, lol.

I also have nice memories of Gettysburg, so please dont post a piccie of that and shatter any more of my childhood... :(

As for some of the points, i fully understand where youre coming from...but as has been mentioned, the vast majority of the issues have been brought up in the patch topic.

Dont give up on the game or the developers yet...if theyre anything like the company i work for (which also produces software), they work to deadlines, and only remove the majority of issues before release. Thats when all the major work gets going to remove everything else that "pops up" and add something more to the "vanilla" version.

Ive been a little dissapointed (hold position, morale, not many areas on maps etc) but still believe that a majority of these will be resolved in future patches. If theyre not, well, there's still some extremely tallented modders out there that will "put the icing on the cake" so to speak....dont give up just yet. ;)

CrossWire
15th Jun 2005, 17:46
Well I agree with Broadcast






NOT! :D

Kokopelli
15th Jun 2005, 20:07
Wow, not seen FoG since the last century! I had so many fond memories aswell, unfortunately....its just been ruined by looking at the screen shot. Wow, that looks bad, lol.

I also have nice memories of Gettysburg, so please dont post a piccie of that and shatter any more of my childhood... :(

As for some of the points, i fully understand where youre coming from...but as has been mentioned, the vast majority of the issues have been brought up in the patch topic.

Dont give up on the game or the developers yet...if theyre anything like the company i work for (which also produces software), they work to deadlines, and only remove the majority of issues before release. Thats when all the major work gets going to remove everything else that "pops up" and add something more to the "vanilla" version.

Ive been a little dissapointed (hold position, morale, not many areas on maps etc) but still believe that a majority of these will be resolved in future patches. If theyre not, well, there's still some extremely tallented modders out there that will "put the icing on the cake" so to speak....dont give up just yet. ;)

Not trying to steer this off-topic, but has there been any word from the Devs regarding a patch? I have not taken the time to read patch thread as it seems to be issues, complaints, etc. But no visible responses from the Devs... (at least in the first few pages I skimmed)

bbushe
15th Jun 2005, 21:18
Well, Broadcast never mentioned he was unhappy with the graphics, obviously they have improved in the last decade.

But no one has addressed the other issues, the biggest for me being morale, which does make the game, well, unfinished as a tactical wargame.

I never had field of glory so can't comment on that, but comparing it on visuals when the poster is commenting on gameplay is pretty weak. I think the graphics in IG are outstanding, but I didn't buy it to watch movies. This needs a major patch.

Broadcast
15th Jun 2005, 21:25
LOL, I'm not slamming the graphics at all, they are obviously better than FoG in spades, but not in gameplay. And I'm sure that someone is making a mod to increase unit size and number of units available in a battle.

BTW, the screenshot is from the zoomed out view. Zoomed in you can see individual soldiers clearly, all the different uniforms and other details...

Broadside
15th Jun 2005, 22:26
FOG just had the most appalling AI imaginable and the game looked just as bad zoomed in - this was 1994 after all! It was Ok for its time, but it has definately had its day. For something more challenging between FOG and IG I would go for Waterloo or Austerlitz by Breakaway games Waterloo (http://www.breakawaygames.com/titles/waterloo/)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/british_gunfire.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/grand_prussian_assault.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/waterlo-reference-infantry.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/scenario_info_zoom.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/prussians_rout.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/markwalters/Miscellaneous/french_prussian_clash.jpg

Element-UK
15th Jun 2005, 22:39
To answer your points:
1: Just as there was not eg 500 ish sprites representing a full unit in any wargame, the population required to build it does let you know the unit size according to it's power on the field, ie roughly 10 men per sprite i would guess at.
2: Square Formation must be researched as it is a Battlefield invention as was use of the Double Line tactic.
3: All agree it's essential for a Morale system to be implimented.
4: All Units can Disengage as long as their not caught up in melee.
5: Hardly a point worth slamming. Just one of those finer detail points maybe the modders can sort out. To be honest, whenever I have played a wargame that does include every sound imaginable, it gets tedious and annoying after a while. It would be best as an option like any music.
6: Clicking on the Crossed Swords Icon then the target is easy enough isn't it ? Storming Building's is done one unit at a time. Needs a Hold Fire Icon to avoid the Friendly Fire though we all agree.
7: Are you saying that Melee and Charging IS NOT a Bayonet Charge ? hmmmm.
8: As with Firing into Melee, most agree this needs sorting.
9: Playing the Naval Battles more does make it grow on you. Also, you can form a Line of Ships by telling them to follow each other. However they should try to follow the same path and not just the direction of the ship.

I remember FoG very well and played it to extinction as with Gettysburg etc. I still prefer this for all the points that all the other games left out though.

For the game that looks like we have all been waiting for, check this ace looking game out:

Link coming. http://www.walkerboystudio.com/html/wbts.html

Anyone who had the foresight to playtest the Demo or look at the screenshots at least would not be expecting a 'Grande Army' game anyway.

Funnily enough I was playing Waterloo today. Tried the Battle of Waterloo. Immensely UN-manageable imo. Gettysburg was far superior even though it is an earlier version using the same engine as Waterloo.

Webrider
15th Jun 2005, 23:50
I still like the TalonSoft battle ground series of games,
Gettysburg
Antietam
Bull Run
Shilo
Waterloo
War in Russia
Prelude to Waterloo

Old graphics and all... been playing Gettysburg online thanks to Tiller on his own dime updating the engines to 32 bit and giving them an internet capability long after the lifespan of the game had come and gone. Guess it still hasn't gone they will always be on my hard drive since their space to fun ratio is so high. What the hell do you mean the install size is 250 meg's 1/4 of a gig. Guess I will continue to brows the forum looking for news of a patch ;)

Kokopelli
16th Jun 2005, 00:53
-Element-UK

I did play the demo for IG and saw the screenshots. I knew ahead of time that it wouldn't be massive battles. However, I am disappointed with several of the faults IG has that have been mentioned several times before.

...and I see no one has answered my questions about the patch... is this to mean the devs are not saying anything about it?

Captain.Crunch
16th Jun 2005, 02:02
Those older 1994 games might have been top stuff in there prime but you need to appreciate what IG has to offer fantastic graphics. The game might not have as HUGE quantity of men at anyone time and HUGE battles (although I think that there big enough)

IG Favours the graphical side of things therefore if they had lots of men at anyone time on the screen the minmum computer requirements would go up not as many people would be able to play the game as you would need top computer specs. The graphics would also have to be lowered if you wanted larger battles and more men and that in my oppinion would make it **** do you really want to go back to pixle or old 3d graphics?

IG is a great game it covers lots of stuff these old 1994 games do not even come close to IG in graphics there in a totally different era………

Prince of Persia is an old game I loved back in those times and when they brought the new prince of Persia out I was jumping with joy I don’t think I would want to go back to ****ty graphics again.
:thumbsup:

Queeg
16th Jun 2005, 03:30
Actually, the recent remake of Pirates!, with nicer graphics and a few added touches (dancing!), served mostly to remind me that you really can't go home again. I loved the original Pirates! - played it more than any game ever. But when I played the new version, I was surprised to be left wanting more. Something really new and different besides the look. The fact that the new Pirates! is the best version of the best pirate game of 1990 just didn't quite cut it for me.

Don't know, really, what that has to do with IG, but there you have it.

Captain.Crunch
16th Jun 2005, 05:18
Actually, the recent remake of Pirates!, with nicer graphics and a few added touches (dancing!), served mostly to remind me that you really can't go home again. I loved the original Pirates! - played it more than any game ever. But when I played the new version, I was surprised to be left wanting more. Something really new and different besides the look. The fact that the new Pirates! is the best version of the best pirate game of 1990 just didn't quite cut it for me.

Don't know, really, what that has to do with IG, but there you have it.

i agree with you i have played both versions of pirates. :D and what you say is true.

Kokopelli
16th Jun 2005, 12:55
Actually, the recent remake of Pirates!, with nicer graphics and a few added touches (dancing!), served mostly to remind me that you really can't go home again. I loved the original Pirates! - played it more than any game ever. But when I played the new version, I was surprised to be left wanting more. Something really new and different besides the look. The fact that the new Pirates! is the best version of the best pirate game of 1990 just didn't quite cut it for me.

Don't know, really, what that has to do with IG, but there you have it.

It was actually 87 when the original Pirates! came out. But nonetheless, that game still holds a place on my top 10 list of the best games I have played.

Oststar
16th Jun 2005, 14:59
IG has its good and bad points, truth be told the vast majority likes IG as is. I'd like to see morale however, though it's not make or break for me. I think the devs should have made the unit numbers more optional... maybe have a setting "60-man battalions" and "120-man" "200-man" or whatever, simply because even on low detail my poor old girl is getting a workover but if I had a 3.2ghz i'd be wishing to see more men. The whole matter of adding the sprites is easy enough, just duplication, my question is whether the game is engineered that increasing sprites will require cascading alterations, or will it be fine just upping sprites?

Most of Broadcast's complaints are simply his own mistakes, (No bayonet charges... WTF?) and asking for a disengage from melee option is ridiculous. Perhaps if there is a morale option then troops could break off and get massacred, but an actual disengage option is as unrealistic as if he asked to add a P-51D to strafe and bomb the battalions. I'm telling you now mate there's not a gumtree's chance in a koala's pen that you'd get men disengaging: the second they stop focusing on fighting for their life they're dead, you'd lose the whole battalion before you could say "my bad", even to inferior numbers (ie 20vs60) the bigger unit wouldn't break off because few would turn their backs and run or even fall back and fewer would leave their comrades to their fate.

The guys requesting RPG elements are starting to irritate me too because IG is a Strategy game not an RPG, play Guild Wars or whatever if you want that.

Altogether I think some AI tweaks and morale effects in 1.2/1.3 is all IG needs to surpass R:TW. Having said that, realistic naval combat is an issue: it has mastered the small ship engagements, but big Ship of the Line battles aren't done right. Many of IG's players know little to nothing of naval combat and those that know a little are expecting big lines of ships blasting away at each other. Often a 74 (SoL) would be on its own patrolling or seperated or whatever, and a Frigate and sloop working together could bring it down, in that respect IG has modelled correctly. Large battles were more often the SoL's (let's say six French SoL's a frigate and two sloops and five British SoLs and two frigates) would form a line and vie for the weather gauge before one side would engage, or the lines would bisect. The SoL's would pound each other with the intent of disabling an enemy ship and capturing it when it fell out of the line. More often many lives were lost and nothing was achieved hence Nelson's Trafalgar plan. The Frigates would aim to either draw the enemy frigates into the SoL's lines of fire or capture it in an independant action. The Sloops did similar or ran messages. Frigates also assisted damaged ships etc. To accurately model this the AI code needs to be tweaked so that multiple SoL's form a line together no matter the target. An auto ship feature that had say "avoid SoL" or whatever so that frigates in big engagements didn't get destroyed would be good, then you would set up lines of SoL's and attach frigates to the Line but avoiding enemy SoL's, with autofire they can be conducting their own battle while you run the main show.

The biggest thing the devs should do if they get stuck on a point like being unable to code in something is ask the modders for help: quite often modders find ways to shoehorn in things that devs don't try or bother with. If Pyro is unwilling to add much wanted content then give modding teams the opportunity!

bbushe
16th Jun 2005, 20:31
I bought Imperial GLory fully knowing it isn't a historical wargame in the sense of the games mentioned below. It's not supposed to give historically accurate scenarios representing Waterloo et al., though it would be nice to be able to do that as well.

The strategy part, economic part, diplomatic part, naval part and yes there are rpg elements of a sort (you can build your units and commanders), combine to make a compelling and playable game. But more is always welcome.

Not sure I agree on troops not fleeing from the melee though, especially militia.

Longstreet63
17th Jun 2005, 02:41
<snip>
...asking for a disengage from melee option is ridiculous. Perhaps if there is a morale option then troops could break off and get massacred, but an actual disengage option is as unrealistic as if he asked to add a P-51D to strafe and bomb the battalions. I'm telling you now mate there's not a gumtree's chance in a koala's pen that you'd get men disengaging: the second they stop focusing on fighting for their life they're dead, you'd lose the whole battalion before you could say "my bad", even to inferior numbers (ie 20vs60) the bigger unit wouldn't break off because few would turn their backs and run or even fall back and fewer would leave their comrades to their fate. <end>

So your position is that every Napoleonic era battle ended in the complete destruction of one side or the other? How do you suppose a lesser result is possible if soldiers do not disengage? What happened, in fact, is that the men at the back retreated first, followed by the middle. Most of the ones in front were in trouble at that point, of course. Happily, the inaccuracy of the musket saved many lives. Retreat was almost always a mistake, but hey, people want to live. At any given point, most soldiers were not actually crossing bayonets with an enemy. They simply didn't enjoy either end of the experience. So, if they felt their personal position indefensible, they withdrew. Another reason to add useful morale effects to the game.

<snip>
Altogether I think some AI tweaks and morale effects in 1.2/1.3 is all IG needs to surpass R:TW. Having said that, realistic naval combat is an issue: it has mastered the small ship engagements, but big Ship of the Line battles aren't done right. Many of IG's players know little to nothing of naval combat and those that know a little are expecting big lines of ships blasting away at each other. Often a 74 (SoL) would be on its own patrolling or seperated or whatever, and a Frigate and sloop working together could bring it down, in that respect IG has modelled correctly.
Where did you ever get that idea? Reading sea sagas? A fifth-rate frigate, let alone a sixth-rate sloop that found itself in gun range of a ship of the line was as good as dead. At the Nile, a french frigate that dared to fire on an British 74 was sunk with a single broadside for her impudence. (Orion vs. Serieus, I believe) On the only occasion I can think of, Pellew sunk a French 74 with Indefatigable (44) with the help of a second frigate only because the weather prevented the French from using her lower deck guns. And that was during the Revolutionary period when French shiphandling was at its worst. Ships of the line did not tend to patrol separately, but in divisions--they were too slow to make it useful--and no frigate would go near them.

Large battles were more often the SoL's (let's say six French SoL's a frigate and two sloops and five British SoLs and two frigates) would form a line and vie for the weather gauge before one side would engage, or the lines would bisect. The SoL's would pound each other with the intent of disabling an enemy ship and capturing it when it fell out of the line. More often many lives were lost and nothing was achieved hence Nelson's Trafalgar plan. The Frigates would aim to either draw the enemy frigates into the SoL's lines of fire or capture it in an independant action. The Sloops did similar or ran messages. Frigates also assisted damaged ships etc.

My point exactly--frigates did not join the line or take part in their battles--they were far too fragile. That is what 'ship of the line' means--a ship heavy enough to stand in the line of battle. An officer in a sloop who fired at an enemy SOL would likely be court martialed for endangering his ship, assuming he survived, given that his 12-pounders (at best) had half the range of a 74's 32-pounders and far from enough power to penetrate her sides.

Thus, we have a game, rather than a simluation. I see your points, but your historical data noted here is simply wrong.

LS

Sithaka
17th Jun 2005, 10:04
Another reason to add useful morale effects to the game.
He is commenting on wether you as player should be given a retreat command not on moral.

Nial
17th Jun 2005, 13:44
Didn't mean to be snippy in my first reply post. We all basicly agree on what IG needs. I can only hope that the length of time we have been waiting for a patch means they are implementing/ including a good deal of our suggestions in said hopefully upcoming patch. Jaycw did say they were working on it. Like all of you I am getting a bit antsy. :cool:

Sir Crow
17th Jun 2005, 14:05
It's interesting that FOG and Waterloo had the post 1801 union flag and IG choose to show the pre 1801 union flag, any reason for this?

Webrider
18th Jun 2005, 14:18
Of course I would not compare IG to the old games ... The Old TalonSoft games only cover one battle and some minor scenarios around that battle. There is certainly no diplomacy production or strategy map. But they do a tactical battle very well even for todays standards.
IG has its potential to be a good game. Now if we could just get a hint of a patch or even acknowledgement that there is one in progress addressing some of the features some of us in the community think are missing, as well as some of the programming insectoids. :eek:

JayDee
18th Jun 2005, 17:05
It's interesting that FOG and Waterloo had the post 1801 union flag and IG choose to show the pre 1801 union flag, any reason for this?

One reason for Waterloo to show the post 1801 flag is coz it's set in 1815 :)
Probably same for FoG (mostly) but dunno coz I never played that title.
With IG I would guess because the game covers the whole era (and beyond) and they had to choose one or the other flag and opted for the pre 1801.

Maybe in future patches for IG the uniforms and flags etc will be redesigned to reflect a more accurate colour pattern (?) who can say at this stage.
JD

Longstreet63
19th Jun 2005, 20:59
He is commenting on wether you as player should be given a retreat command not on moral.

He said disengagement was impossible. I noted that it happened all the time. There are even bugle commands for it. In regards to morale, it made the difference between withdrawal and routing. If the opposing force wants to back off and does so in good order and discipline, it takes quite a bit of courage to try and stop them. If they just turn tail and run, however, the temptation to chase is almost insurmountable. That is all about the morale of the two forces.

That said, I don't really need the ability to disengage in this game unless some useful implementation of morale occurs. Otherwise it isn't going to be too useful.

Ironhand
21st Jun 2005, 23:24
A number of nations made much of the bayonet being 'their' national weapon against which no enemy could stand: Britain, France and Russia all regarded it in this light, and numerous colorful declarations by generals are recorded to emphasize the point.

Yet, leaving aside the storming of fortified positions, examples of melees, unlike what IG would have you beleive, are hardly to be found.

Were bayonet charges uncommon? No. But they were almost always executed when the enemy had already been shattered by musketry or artillery fire and was already wavering. One side or the other almost invariably broke and ran before bayonets could be brought into play, the resulting fights being simply to hasten the fleeing troops on their way.

It was the physchological effect of the charge that brought results, rather than the physical.

In the whole of the Peninsular War, though there are accounts of bayonet duels between individual soldiers, there appears to be only one example of a mass bayonet fight, which so impressed those who saw it they made much of it. Which is hard to do if they were in the style of IG. The fight took place at Roncesvalles on 7/25/1813.

In the words of G.J. Guthrie, who as a surgeon in the campaign would know. "Troops never fought hand to hand for the best possible reason. One side turns and runs as soon as the other comes close enough to do mischief."

Unlike IG.

Czar
22nd Jun 2005, 05:12
Actually, the recent remake of Pirates!, with nicer graphics ....

Don't know, really, what that has to do with IG, but there you have it.

Well, there is a sad link between IG and Pirates! IMHO.

Both were tested by 'professional' Beta Testers and both had serious hardware incompatibilities when released to retail.
(In the case of Pirates! the SIS7012 sound systems were incompatible resulting in no sound and being unable to dance so losing much of the game :( - with IG it seems they somehow missed a problem with Intel Chipsets)

It really is a sad reflection on the industry that such oversights are becoming MORE COMMON rather than becoming less common.

Sithaka
22nd Jun 2005, 10:27
with IG it seems they somehow missed a problem with Intel Chipsets)

It really is a sad reflection on the industry that such oversights are becoming MORE COMMON rather than becoming less common.there are alot of different videocards and if one doesnt support some way of programming, its possible that that slips through the testing. Which is imo more an oversight of intel than of pyro, as pyro cant test all possible setups. The game has few bugs, which is what is tested. If pyro made a mistake somewhere, it is in their decision to program video in that way and assuming every card supported it (which except for intel is true) not with the testers.

SharpFish
22nd Jun 2005, 11:16
Were bayonet charges uncommon? No. But they were almost always executed when the enemy had already been shattered by musketry or artillery fire and was already wavering. One side or the other almost invariably broke and ran before bayonets could be brought into play, the resulting fights being simply to hasten the fleeing troops on their way.

This is true, inasmuch as I have read one author, who fought in the revolutionary wars of 1844, report that he had never seen or even heard of a single instance in which a line stood to meet a column. But the French Revolution created a large but ill-armed army that did, I believe, charge to melee in column - and it is these milita columns that line infantry would not face.

Longstreet63
25th Jun 2005, 00:26
This is true, inasmuch as I have read one author, who fought in the revolutionary wars of 1844, report that he had never seen or even heard of a single instance in which a line stood to meet a column. But the French Revolution created a large but ill-armed army that did, I believe, charge to melee in column - and it is these milita columns that line infantry would not face.

Funny he hadn't heard of Waterloo. Or Salamanca. Or Talavera, to name but a few. It did generally work against continental troops, but not the British. No conscripts, you see.

And what revolution in 1844 has bearing on the Napoleonic period--or was that a misprint? That was cap-and-ball time.

LS

deadboy10
25th Jun 2005, 10:42
This game lacks on a few points because 2 simple words:
Deadline & budget.
Take half-life 2 for exemple, unlimited budget and time ( i think readed that somewhere ) = great game.
The makers cant do everything!

Right now a moral system would be nice and option to turn your unit size to diffrent sizes ( like rtw ).

Mike_B
25th Jun 2005, 12:39
This game lacks on a few points because 2 simple words:
Deadline & budget.
Take half-life 2 for exemple, unlimited budget and time ( i think readed that somewhere ) = great game.


Disagree on that, I've played better games than HL2. When you were actually shooting it was a good game but there was to much time wasted in oversized levels were you just drove around in either an uncontrollable buggy or hovercraft boat. On top of that having the pretention to charge an extra 5€ which seems to imply that they're better than other games? In the assumption that everyone will buy it anyway.. but that's enough off topic for today.

Eruan
25th Jun 2005, 13:32
Half Life 2? :D

Over sized levels+Extreme boredom= Crappy game :D

So much hype, for a game that in my opinion really failed especially since after getting pretty far, i still didn't get the connection to the first game :confused:

Ironhand
10th Jul 2005, 03:37
Funny he hadn't heard of Waterloo. Or Salamanca. Or Talavera, to name but a few. It did generally work against continental troops, but not the British. No conscripts, you see.

LS

He neglects Wellington's use of reverse slope tactics. The Grande Armee's usual infantry formation was two lines of battalion columns with enough space to deploy into line, arranged checkerboard fashion. Once contact was established with the enemy, the leading battalions would deploy into line and start shooting.

Wellington's tactics ensured that the French were usually caught in column as they could not deploy at the right time. Can't make contact with what you can't see.

Yes, columns are easier to control and move around. And if the enemy was disordered or weak, the French commander would not bother to deploy and just bayonet his way through. But they weren't stupid.

Thankfully Crown of Glory is out.