PDA

View Full Version : Is it worth it



Polish Lancer
17th Jul 2005, 19:24
Just played the Demos that I downloaded and I have some worries. :confused:
Is it me or is artillery range tiny compared to muskets. Bearing in mind a musket is accurate at under 100 paces and artillery can kill at much further range :confused: .

What are the British doing with lancers during the Napoleonic period?????

not to mention my multiple squares collapsing under a cavalry attack.

All in all what I need to know is it worth me paying £30+ to get it.

Apart from that I like the landscapes I fought over, it looks like it might be interesting to have a bash at.

Anyone who has played it can you give me something to persuade me.

Queeg
18th Jul 2005, 01:05
It is for me.

IG is not an historical simulation. So the uniforms aren't stictly historical, the units are somewhat generic rather than tailored to each nation, and much is abstracted and simplified.

It is, however, a very good historical strategy game. The strategic campaign is well-conceived and challenging, with more than one way to win. The playable nations tend to present nicely differentiated challenges. Overall, the strategic part of the game is very polished and essentially a game unto itself.

Land battles are blast but you have to spend some time learning the interface, commands and units. The battles do not play out exactly like the Total War series, which has disappointed some folks. That's a plus, in my view, because I always found the TW battles to be too easy and repetitive. Battles in IG are bloody and challenging. I've been beaten by the AI many times, and you have to be good to win regularly against unequal odds. The maps are beautiful and have many different terrain elements that affect your tactics. Again, you need to take some time to learn how everything works, but I've grown to enjoy the battles immensely the more I've played the game.

Naval combat looks nice but is a love-hate deal. Ships can be hard to control, especially in multi-ship battles. But, with practice, I've come to enjoy them. You can auto-resolve them with reasonable results, if you find they're not to your liking.

To answer your specific questions:

1. Artillery range is shorter than I'd like but you get used to it as you play. Atillery is very devastating, if used properly.

2. Didn't play the demo, so I don't know how squares work there. In the real game, though, infantry squares will stop cavalry charges 90% of the time.

Polish Lancer
18th Jul 2005, 21:12
Cheers for the reply am now wavering :thumbsup:

Ryoken
18th Jul 2005, 22:08
I played this game for about 3 weeks and put it down, probably for good.

The game is easy once you get the hang of it, but then so are almost all games, imho. The problem is time-flow. Early on, the computer nations build lots of militia because it is all they can afford/build. Then as time goes on, your power becomes so great that militia is worthless really. Then you attack the AI and they are weaklings.

I beat the campaign game 4 times and quit when I was near to my 5th victory. Despite this, I never reached the 3rd tech level, ever. I would end up in battles with elite infantry units against militia. It was pathetic.

This isnt a problem in battles, but it ruins the campaign game for me.

That beings said, read my AAR in my signature for more information.

PrinceMyshkin
19th Jul 2005, 01:27
if you're considering buying this just because of the battles, i recommend against it.

not because i don't like the game, cuz i do! but the strategic part of the campaign trumps the battles. tactics are difficult in the battles. they're rather quick and it's hard to keep a handle on your troops.

not really a "bash 'em up" kind of game. you CAN attack early and win early. playing a "tech" game as britain, presents you with a tougher game. but if you don't wanna spend 10 to 15 years prepping for war, you won't like it...

Vorster
19th Jul 2005, 06:06
The strategic part is the best part of the game. It just takes a while to get up to speed with a decent army especially if you have my type A1 personality and enjoy the best in your ranks. The faster you advance you tend to leave the opposition behind.

The land battles are great but on the short side. The AI can sometimes be stupid but for the most you will find that if you aren't carefull even militia can maul an army of the best.

Over all a thumbs up. The downside is I don't do anything else these days. :rolleyes:

5/77 Armd
19th Jul 2005, 12:43
I've found the battles to be a huge disappointment, I play the game purely for the strategic aspect which I find excellent. If it wasn't for the strategic/diplomatic aspect of the game, it would be on my shelf.

zeroh
20th Jul 2005, 10:40
Yeah if your into grand stradagy this game is very good on the battles it needs a bit of patching and polish but the stradagy is real good if you want weak stradagy but good battle play RTW

joxer31
20th Jul 2005, 13:25
I played this old PC game for hours. Looks a little silly on the faster computers anymore. The animation moves by so fast but the overall game speed is realistic. I wished there was a way to build my own armies and fight my own battles rather than the 6-7 pre set ones they offered.

Anyway, that style of grand tactical battle was what I was hoping for. Being able to command individual units, divisions, or even corps on the battlefield. But as we have seen, the battles are more about action, and less about strategy. It was almost pointless to put a timer for the battles as I have yet to fight one down to the wire.

And I agree with the many opinions out there, the strategic map of Europe is one of its strongest points, outshining that of RTW for its diplomacy and intrigue.

=V3=
25th Jul 2005, 17:18
So, it's not like total war, where you can set up two armies (sort of like in an editor) and fight custom battles? If so, BUMER! :mad:

Queeg
25th Jul 2005, 21:33
You can fight Quick Battles, just like RTW.