PDA

View Full Version : My View of IG



ST0MPA
5th Aug 2005, 15:13
i have read a lot of the stuff on these forums for last few months, being that was all i could was read while waiting for an eternity for activation, good start to the support for this game i thought, then came all the negative threads regarding game play and this and that. one of the things that got most attention was the patch suggestion thread wich basicaly asked for a lot of RTW features. exception to a few requests for unit range e.g. canons. after playing the socks of this game since it hit oz i had a weird feeling about a month ago that there wasnt going to be much of a patch becouse honestly i didnt think it needed one, sure the militia are a pain but if you think about the battle terrain and strategic positions you can almost play ping pong with the buggers, i mean lets try and think along the lines of napoleon and how he used different troops to fight the militia in france, lure them to line infantry standing in front of cannon, blam volley from the troops, they exit stage left, WAHM grape shot from the canons, then oops up pop more troops on the flank bam,
i think the speed slider is more than enough for a pause and comand, and now at least you can speed up your arrivals to the point of crissis. i think this game rocks, even more now with the mods available so far and i think as more come out the better it will get.

Anyway this is just my oppinion, and really have no complaints of the game.

a suggestion when playing singleplayer and you find it all to easy on hard, try using more basic line infantry and stuff and use a few elites here and there to enhance their strenght.

Lakefather
5th Aug 2005, 16:13
I agree with pretty much all you said, I consider myself a veteran of the TW series (Been playing since Shogun was released) but I was disappointed with Rome: TW. I really like IG and the only thing I would change is the unit stats to make the battles last alot longer. Hopefully when the lead programmer is back from vacation we will be able to do this.

Overall though I like this game and hope that Pryo decide to make an expansion or a sequel.

screamingpalm
6th Aug 2005, 01:41
IG vs RTW:

IG is more tactically fun for me because of benefits to using combined arms, and spread out infantry instead of mass. Unfortunately I cant host a mp game of IG which is incredibly frustrating, and I can host RTW.

RTW has a nice morale/fatigue and rallying generals which IG dosent have.

Total score for me: 1-1


Neither game is as good as Bull Run as far as a sp game for my money (and at its meager price is a steal).

Queeg
6th Aug 2005, 03:26
Neither game is as good as Bull Run as far as a sp game for my money (and at its meager price is a steal).

I agree. Bull Run is a great game. I hear they plan to add a strategic element to the next installment. (The reason I know that is because the designer there actually talks.)

screamingpalm
6th Aug 2005, 03:37
I agree. Bull Run is a great game. I hear they plan to add a strategic element to the next installment. (The reason I know that is because the designer there actually talks.)


Yeah, they are great on the forums over there. Very fast with replies and stand up guys. Im glad to see someone else here has been able to try the game. It has been selling out at most places because the publisher underestimated its' success. I usually hate sp games, but that one is excellent. Well done AI, and lots of fun. Incredible game considering it was done by a couple of guys on their own time with thier own money. Mp is also a possibility on the hoizon as well. They have said that they want to make sure they get it right before releasing, and not rush out an unfinished product. There is also talk of a possible Napoleonic project....probably not so near future Im guessing however. Maybe if thier games do well, it might speed up a possible Napoleonic title though. :cool:

EDIT: sorry for the highjack STOMPA :D

ST0MPA
6th Aug 2005, 06:33
NP mate, i have played the demo for that game, and at first glance at the graphics i went yuk, becouse IG graphics spoilt it for me, but you guys are correct, when you start playing it gets quite addictive, skirmish lines, long drawn out musket volleys, and an enemy that retreats from the battle line when his moral drops. I will have to buy this game online tho dont think they sent any copies to Oz

efthimios
6th Aug 2005, 06:47
My view on IG is a positive one. I am lucky I guess that I haven't encountered (that I know of) any bugs yet, and the two things I wasn't crazy about were fixed. (speed and the annoying after a while mr fudging obvious, nice voice btw).

What I am more impressed by this game though is the speed that the battles are played. Meaning the smoothness with such great (IMO) graphics. I have a PIVm 1.7 (old version) with 512 RAM and a 64MBs Radeon mobility 7500 and the game is so smooth that I couldn't believe it at first. It is smoother even to say RTW with low details on! A big thank you to the developers for making that!

The naval battles do suck big time, unfortunately. They could be much better but they are so much worse than I am forced to auto-resolve them since they suck the fun out of the game IMO.

ST0MPA
6th Aug 2005, 06:49
Yeah m8 i have a p4 1.6 and it runs ok .


naval battles sucked at first, but now i love em, i dont use the map any more, the boundries are a good thing or you will be chasing fleeing sloops for a month. I would always be up for a sea battle.