PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Glory 2 - Player suggestions



ramragir
2nd Sep 2005, 12:24
That's the question. Are there any news about Imperial Glory 2? (if there is going to be one).

General Cassard
3rd Sep 2005, 01:22
Improvements for Imperial Glory 2, should there be one:

-The entire world should involved. This would add more depth to the game.

-Spain and the Ottoman Empire as, well, empires. Not minor countries that can be peacefully annexed.

-It shouldn't be possible to peacefully annex a country while it's at war.

-Better use of naval forces by the AI. Amphibious invasions are very poorly carried out, to say the least. They never build up a decent fleet, and they never send an escort force ahead of their troop ships to clear ports of enemy vessels.

-The empires rely too much on their militaries to expand. They never try to weaken other countries economically before they start wars.

-For countries that are so militaristic, they should employ better tactics. They fight too much like China and Russia, just full frontal assaults with no counter tactics or flanking manouveurs or opening up 2nd fronts where they try to win by numbers.

-In order to peacefully annex a country, it should be necessary to have 100% sympathy for a whole year.

-If you can keep and empire subjugated for a year, it should be possible to annex it.

lipton
3rd Sep 2005, 13:32
- you'r able to play as Denmark

but you could do it like this: if you play as France then you automaticly ex. control spain and morrocco or some....idea?

then Austria could control Helvetian R. and Russia some other countrys

britishjohn
7th Sep 2005, 17:09
Many of us would no doubt like to see a second Imperial Glory made. However what extra features would make the game so much better.

Give some of your ideas, you never know, If a second Imperial Glory is going to happen then this may be a source of the ideas for the game makers.

joxer31
7th Sep 2005, 18:50
You can spend upto 10-15 minutes arranging your forces, then the actual fighting takes less than 3. Especially if you use your artillery. AI loves to send all his troops towards the arty.

Which is good because we would sit there and blow em all up if they didnt move and claim it was stupid AI. Should limit the ammo of cannon so the AI doesnt have to charge them to eliminate their threat on the field.

Increase the rate of fire for the units. I mean, to watch soldiers run 70 meters and my guys only get 1, maybe 2 shots off (4-5 star units) seems a bit fast. Even for fully loaded troops with backpacks, rifles etc.

Just for asthetic purposes, I like that infantry formed in squares repel cavalry everytime. Though, I highly doubt that a cavalry formation would charge directly at them and attack just 1 side. They instead would break and ride around the sides. Not stop on a dime and turn around. That was the beauty of the square, all 4 sides got to shoot at the charging cavalry. Not just 1.

Maybe an option to increase unit size, like in RTW, not hard code the number.

sick
7th Sep 2005, 19:39
not everything is answered as in order to mod certain settings of the game you'll need the full game editor and Pyro are a bit reluctant to release this as it may be used on up-coming titles.

Time will tell if this is for IG2, or for another game.

I'd say, go for it. :)

hardyea
7th Sep 2005, 21:56
I think The World Sould All Play Or Have Asia Vs America or Something Like that. And If we are going to Have another, that they Sould Not Be able To Have So Much Power. If I Vs Mililia Vs Men that are very Srong and I Losed to The Milila. I just can't Wait To See it!

General Cassard
8th Sep 2005, 18:19
It's really not a good idea to mount frontal assaults with cavalry, unless it's Polish Lancers charging non-elite troops. It's better to use them to attack unprepared troops, such as a unit that's preparing for a musket volley.

-I'd also like to see minor nations annex other minor nations. I've noticed that Denmark never attacks Sweden, even when the Swedish army has been wiped out by the British or the Russians. Two Sicilies is in a perfect position to take Papal State, Piedmont, and eventually Lombardy to form a unified Italy.

-It should be possible to build military hospitals no matter what form of government you choose.

-More research eras. It should allow for the building of steam ships and railroads.

-Militia should be phased out after the first era except for patriot armies.

-The naval battles could use some improvement.

-2 months to train elite units and 1 months to train non-elite units. The non-elite units should also become cheaper to recruit after each research era.

-The square formation should be available at the beginning of the game. Seriously, it was in use at the battle of Tours by Charles "The Hammer" Martel in the 8th century against the Muslim cavalry.

britishjohn
9th Sep 2005, 12:00
It's really not a good idea to mount frontal assaults with cavalry, unless it's Polish Lancers charging non-elite troops. It's better to use them to attack unprepared troops, such as a unit that's preparing for a musket volley.

-I'd also like to see minor nations annex other minor nations. I've noticed that Denmark never attacks Sweden, even when the Swedish army has been wiped out by the British or the Russians. Two Sicilies is in a perfect position to take Papal State, Piedmont, and eventually Lombardy to form a unified Italy.

-It should be possible to build military hospitals no matter what form of government you choose.

-More research eras. It should allow for the building of steam ships and railroads.

-Militia should be phased out after the first era except for patriot armies.

-The naval battles could use some improvement.

-2 months to train elite units and 1 months to train non-elite units. The non-elite units should also become cheaper to recruit after each research era.

-The square formation should be available at the beginning of the game. Seriously, it was in use at the battle of Tours by Charles "The Hammer" Martel in the 8th century against the Muslim cavalry.

I think Railways would be ok because it would allow you to move any army within your home country to any other territory in one turn, e.g. An army in England could go straight to Ireland, bypassing Scotland. For non-home territories, railways could allow armies to move through 2 territories instead of just one.

I am not sure about the steam ship idea though, I think some of the magic of the Napoleonic Warfare would be lost if steam ships were researchable. Though I am not saying that the current naval battles don't need improving.

General Cassard
9th Sep 2005, 17:57
I think Railways would be ok because it would allow you to move any army within your home country to any other territory in one turn, e.g. An army in England could go straight to Ireland, bypassing Scotland. For non-home territories, railways could allow armies to move through 2 territories instead of just one.

Exactly. This would serve a much greater purpose on a world map.



I am not sure about the steam ship idea though, I think some of the magic of the Napoleonic Warfare would be lost if steam ships were researchable. Though I am not saying that the current naval battles don't need improving.

True, but to conquer the entire world would take a campaign well beyond the Napoleonic Era, so steamships should become available later on.

Expanding the map to the entire world would also allow for new units of elite troops, such as Mongolian and Native American cavalry, which were some of the fiercest in the world.

joxer31
9th Sep 2005, 20:04
Expanding the map to the entire world would also allow for new units of elite troops, such as Mongolian and Native American cavalry, which were some of the fiercest in the world.

If you start expanding the map, you lose what first brought people to the game. A strictly Napoleonic game. Where European armies lined up across from each other.

Granted, the times did strongly influence the rest of the world but to have Apache warriors in Russia, or Mongols in Mexico? No, that is ridiculous for the style of game they have tried to achieve here. Stick to the European theater.

General Cassard
9th Sep 2005, 21:32
If you start expanding the map, you lose what first brought people to the game. A strictly Napoleonic game. Where European armies lined up across from each other.

Granted, the times did strongly influence the rest of the world but to have Apache warriors in Russia, or Mongols in Mexico? No, that is ridiculous for the style of game they have tried to achieve here. Stick to the European theater.

By involving North Africa and the Ottoman Empire in the first place, you're taking away from the Napoleonic aspect, because neither were involved in any matter of significance, except for Egypt from 1798-1801.

This is a video game. It can only be so real, and it's obviously not going to follow history to the point that you're suggesting. The NE was over in 1815 in reality, but in this game, however, it can and does go on for significantly longer than that. Or how about this: Suppose, as Austria, I conquer and subjugate France and kill Napoloean in 1800. Should the game just end right there because the "Napoleonic Era" is technically over? Of course not. On that same note, the game should not end after Europe is conquered. The game is called "Imperial Glory", and I think we can all agree that Imperialists would not be satisfied with just Europe. They'd want to expand to the rest of the world.

To be honest, the game isn't really all that Napoleonic to begin with. First of all, Britain should not be amassing armies and invading countries in Continental Europe, as most of its commanders and troops should be off defending its colonies. During the NE, England was known more for paying other countries to fight France. Speaking of armies, France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia should have huge armies to begin with, and not those pitiful things you get at the start. Britain should also start out with something like 10 ships instead of 2 since it was known for its naval supremacy.

There's also the fact Spain experienced great unrest in its colonies during the Napoleonic Era, and where do you think Britain was getting all that money? The latter was also involved in a 3-year war with America from 1812-1815.

There's only so much you can do with Europe. It's not a very large place when compared to other continents, so it would be a much better idea to include the rest of the world to add depth to the game. It starts out Napoleanic, but it's obviously not going to stay that way forever. Times would eventually change and countries would want to advance even further.

Mongolian cavalry in Mexico or Apaches in Russia is no less Napoleonic than having Moroccan, Tunisian, and Turkish infantry and camel cavalry invading the British Isles, but keep the ideas coming. I'd love to use Brazilian troops to invade India.

britishjohn
10th Sep 2005, 12:28
I disagree with Joxer 31, extending the theatre of war to the world will not harm the game. The only thing that I think will harm the game is allowing the time frame to surpass the Napoleonic era. So long as all of the new global powers are accurate in their weaponrary, fighting style and uniforms, I think a world map will be a great Challenge. Of course, I don't think that a world map should be squeezed into one screen like the European map of current, I think it would have to be broken up so you had to scroll to each continent or region. This would create a massive map where battles could rage anywhere. This would allow players to decide whether to adopt the German model of play and just concentrate on expaning in Europe, or whether to adopt the British or Russian approach which seeks to expand in other continents.

This would lead to great advantages for each type of Empire. Empires that stuck to their own continent would probably be militarily concentrated however they would lack the trading and political influence and resources of an Empire spead across the globe.

The major Playable Empires that should be available should be:

Great Britain
France
Austria
Prussia
Russia
United States
Ottoman Empire
Spain
China

With the rest of the worlds nations playing the role of minor powers.
Obviously when allowing nations like China to be a major power considerations about their units would need to be made, perhaps having more soldier in a unit but substantially less firepower and strength of a European division.

General Cassard
11th Sep 2005, 08:33
I disagree with Joxer 31, extending the theatre of war to the world will not harm the game. The only thing that I think will harm the game is allowing the time frame to surpass the Napoleonic era. So long as all of the new global powers are accurate in their weaponrary, fighting style and uniforms, I think a world map will be a great Challenge. Of course, I don't think that a world map should be squeezed into one screen like the European map of current, I think it would have to be broken up so you had to scroll to each continent or region. This would create a massive map where battles could rage anywhere. This would allow players to decide whether to adopt the German model of play and just concentrate on expaning in Europe, or whether to adopt the British or Russian approach which seeks to expand in other continents.

This would lead to great advantages for each type of Empire. Empires that stuck to their own continent would probably be militarily concentrated however they would lack the trading and political influence and resources of an Empire spead across the globe.

The major Playable Empires that should be available should be:

Great Britain
France
Austria
Prussia
Russia
United States
Ottoman Empire
Spain
China

With the rest of the worlds nations playing the role of minor powers.
Obviously when allowing nations like China to be a major power considerations about their units would need to be made, perhaps having more soldier in a unit but substantially less firepower and strength of a European division.

I agree. Expanding to a world map wouldn't hurt it as long as the aspects of the Napoleonic Era were kept and didn't get too out of hand. Steam ships and railroads should be as far as things should go. The only effects would be that it would be easier to move troops and ships would be noticeably faster than ones with sails. As long as it doesn't extend to airplanes, tanks, submarines, machine guns, automatic rifles, 35mm howitzers, mortar rounds, and aircraft carriers, then things should be okay.

Empires using colonial troops in their armies is nothing new at all. If you can use European troops to invade North America, Africa, and Asia, then I certainly don't see why it's some kind of a crime to have North American, African, and Asian troops invade Europe. Even Napolean used Egyptian Mamelukes at the Battle of Austerlitz, so if he can do that, they why can't Britain invade the central United States, recruit some Sioux Warriors, and use them to fight against China?

Japan should also be a playable empire. Asia is the largest continent in the world, and there's also the matter of Australia, so Russia and Britain could use a little competition. Japan could be the "Great Britain" of the Pacific since it's an island nation with a pretty powerful navy and obvious imperialistic ambitions.

After annexing a nation, its fleet should come under your control instead of simply disappearing from the map.

Since, there's a world map, it should be possible to see the entire map from the beginning, considering colonial possessions, etc. Britain and Spain should have their large fleets and a lot of money and resources from the beginning since they had the largest empires at the time, and other minor countries such as Portugal and Denmark should have their colonies of Brazil and Greenland.

The possibilities are endless. Russia invading British-controlled Canada via the Bering Strait, the Ottoman Empire conquering all of Africa and the Middle East, Britain and Japan slugging it out for control of Asia, France succeeding in controlling all of Europe while Russia and Britain are busy fighting thousands of miles away, the Spanish-American war happening 100 years earlier, but this time for control of Mexico and South America.

General Cassard
14th Sep 2005, 19:30
It should also be possible to upgrade units to their superior regiments after a certain number of battles.

Fusiliers, Red Coats, and Musketeers to Grenadiers.

Tiralleurs, Grenzers, and Light Infantry to Voltigeurs, Jagers, and Rifleman.

Hussars to Cuirassiers.

Polish regular lancers to the elite Polish Lancers.

Grenadiers to Imperial Guard, Royal Guard, and Ismailovski Guard.

There should also be Grenadier-like units for the African and Turkish countries.

seawolf2004
14th Sep 2005, 20:05
How about Russian having e atomic bomb ?

And Prussia with V2 rocket launcher

And British with powerfull fleet

And france with submarine (plus they can keep the Darth vader with them too )

And austria with Cyborg and their droids

oh oh, and SPain may keep the B-2 bomber.

it might be kewl :p

ps. Batavia (Hollands) may keep their ion cannon. :thumbsup:

========

ahhh just kidding here. Keep going guys.... keep pumping your ideas here. And i think you should solicitating to EIdos Developer team to expand your ideas. ( i heard this poeple having good salary there ). Who knows they might be interested listening your ideas, and useing your ideas to expand the game to more exiting.\

My compliments to you all :D

britishjohn
15th Sep 2005, 11:29
The biggest problem I can forsee about having a world map with more powers and neutrals would be the weapons. Obviously to keep the game in the realms of accuracy, some nations in Africa, Asia and even the Americas and Australia would not have gunpowder weapons. Their primary weapons would be axes, swords and the bow. Also these nations would be hugely less politically and economically sophisticated compared to the European powers. I think therefore that their unit divisions would have to be a lot bigger than 60 infantry or 36 cavalry, which is the standard for divisions in the current game. I think a sort of zulu style batlle would be most accurate. Natives with huge rabbles of poorly armed men against small but well equiped European Armies.

However, I think if this were to be adopted, the militia unit for the European powers should be removed. I have seen many threads in this forum of those who are fed up with militia. I think this annoyance would be amplified if there was a world map full of militia like units. I think players would expect to fight professional and armed armies when fighting a European or other major power.

I had a thought, if there was to be a world map then imagine how many ocean regions there would be?

The only thing with a world map I wouldn't want to see is the current European map being shrunk into less territories. I think Each continent should be like the one in the current game and have a lot of territories and powers within it. As I have mentioned previously, I think minor nations shold be able to completely conquer other minor nations instead of just being able to attack non-capital territories.

Icanus
15th Sep 2005, 17:44
I think that for a world map to work there would ned to be some changes to the way annexing/conquering countries & diplomacy work:

-have all conquered countries be "Occupied" in the same way as Empires in the current game, so that they have to be kept garisonned or they will rebel (possibly make it so that there is only a chance of rebelling if un-occupied, rather than rising up the first turn after the troops leave), but allow occupied teritories to be used properly (train troops, provide resources). This would mean that to build up a large empire you would need more manpower all over, rather than just along the borders.

-add a new diplomatic state of "protectorate", like allies, but longer lasting - the protectorate would pay tribute to an empire, and allow troops to move through it freely, but still remain an independant state (this should be what can be achieved instead of peaceful annexation, rather than completely absorbing the country at 100% relations it becomes a protectorate), possibly protectorates could become absorbed into the empire completely after 5 or 10 years.

-add more felxibility to diplomacy: allow countries to choose the length of alliances, break alliances prematurely (at the cost of some popularity globally), allow more detailed requests for millitary aid (rather than asking nations to simply turn over troops to you, ask them to invade a particular province) etc.

-Give nations the option to break an alliance rather than get dragged into a war along with their allies (this should come at he cost of global popularity).

General Cassard
15th Sep 2005, 18:20
The biggest problem I can forsee about having a world map with more powers and neutrals would be the weapons. Obviously to keep the game in the realms of accuracy, some nations in Africa, Asia and even the Americas and Australia would not have gunpowder weapons. Their primary weapons would be axes, swords and the bow. Also these nations would be hugely less politically and economically sophisticated compared to the European powers. I think therefore that their unit divisions would have to be a lot bigger than 60 infantry or 36 cavalry, which is the standard for divisions in the current game. I think a sort of zulu style batlle would be most accurate. Natives with huge rabbles of poorly armed men against small but well equiped European Armies.

Asian nations should indeed have guns and gunpowder weapons, since gunpowder was invented in China, which obviously had a lot of influence in Asia. The same goes for the Middle East, Persia(Iran) north, west, and south african nations, which bought guns from Europeans, and were also influenced by the Ottoman Empire. Even the Japanese started manufacturing guns after buying them from the Portuguese. However, I agree that places like Australia, Indonesia, Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, etc should not have guns.....yet.

They should be able to go through research eras and have guns much later on in the game, but their hand-to-hand units, such as spearsmen, etc, should be much larger than European units, and their melee and charge attacks should also do more damage. Cavalry would be very important when attacking Africa, Asia, Indian Territories, etc.



However, I think if this were to be adopted, the militia unit for the European powers should be removed. I have seen many threads in this forum of those who are fed up with militia. I think this annoyance would be amplified if there was a world map full of militia like units. I think players would expect to fight professional and armed armies when fighting a European or other major power.

I agree. Militia should be phased out altogether, and patriot armies should consist of nothing lower than line infantry. I, for one, am sick and tired of taking the time to build up large, elite armies just to fight a bunch of guys with sticks. That's one thing that takes away from the game. These are supposed to be the greatest empires in the world, and they're still using militia well into the 3rd research era.



I had a thought, if there was to be a world map then imagine how many ocean regions there would be?

Many. The Pacific Ocean by itself would have a bunch of them, because it's 3 times as large as the Atlantic.

Speaking of the ocean, naval battles could use some improvement. One on One ship battles leave a lot to be desired, and it's much better when multiple ships are involved. I do a lot better in 3-on-3 and 6-on-6 battles than I do in 1-on-1. That "leaving the engagement" crap needs to be taken out, as I've lost a lot of battles because the AI gets chickensh**, starts running away like a little girl, and I lose for leaving the engagement. It should also be possible to have 10 ships in each ocean region instead of just 6.

It should also be possible to capture merchant vessels like Brigantines, Packets, and Urcas and raid them of their supplies.



The only thing with a world map I wouldn't want to see is the current European map being shrunk into less territories. I think Each continent should be like the one in the current game and have a lot of territories and powers within it. As I have mentioned previously, I think minor nations shold be able to completely conquer other minor nations instead of just being able to attack non-capital territories.

True. Large countries and territories like Russia, Canada, India, etc should have more territories, like 7 or 10. It should also be possible to build military academies in in some of the minor nations, territories, once they're annexed. England should have two in Canada, one in India, Spain should have two in Mexico(which was much larger then) and more in Central and South America, Portugal should have one in Brazil, America should have two to start with, and it should be possible to build them in Africa after annexation.

However, other territories such as Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Trinidad, Martinique, Greenland, Iceland, New Guinea, Madagascar, New Zealand, Hawaii, Tahiti, Fiji, etc. should not have military academies, and should rely on their parent nations sending troops by ship to garrison them.

A world map would make the game last longer, which would allow more generals to get promoted to the rank of field marshal. So far, I've only had Davout and Bonaparte get promoted to marshal, since it takes 26 battles, and by the time they did, I was only a few turns away from conquering the whole map. 18 units per side in would make the battles larger and more realistic, and generals could be sent as commanders of "expeditionary forces" to invade and garrison foreign lands.

I'd also like to see peaceful annexation completely removed. This was the age of imperialism and war, and there's no way that all of these countries would have just bowed down without a fight.

To expand on an earlier point, as time passes, there should be research advances to put units through tougher training. That way, they become cheaper and take less turns to recruit. All the units up to grenadier, and non-elite cavalry units should take 1 turn, and elite units should take 2 turns.

General Cassard
15th Sep 2005, 18:36
I think that for a world map to work there would ned to be some changes to the way annexing/conquering countries & diplomacy work:

-have all conquered countries be "Occupied" in the same way as Empires in the current game, so that they have to be kept garisonned or they will rebel (possibly make it so that there is only a chance of rebelling if un-occupied, rather than rising up the first turn after the troops leave), but allow occupied teritories to be used properly (train troops, provide resources). This would mean that to build up a large empire you would need more manpower all over, rather than just along the borders.

-add a new diplomatic state of "protectorate", like allies, but longer lasting - the protectorate would pay tribute to an empire, and allow troops to move through it freely, but still remain an independant state (this should be what can be achieved instead of peaceful annexation, rather than completely absorbing the country at 100% relations it becomes a protectorate), possibly protectorates could become absorbed into the empire completely after 5 or 10 years.

-add more felxibility to diplomacy: allow countries to choose the length of alliances, break alliances prematurely (at the cost of some popularity globally), allow more detailed requests for millitary aid (rather than asking nations to simply turn over troops to you, ask them to invade a particular province) etc.

-Give nations the option to break an alliance rather than get dragged into a war along with their allies (this should come at he cost of global popularity).

Those are pretty good ideas, and would also make the game more realistic.

Rebelling did occur a lot during those times(American Revolution, Spain's colonies rebelling), so it should be necessary to station forces to keep them under control, but as you said, it should be possible to recruit troops and build in them.

I also prefer the idea of protectorate to peaceful annexation, and I agree about the military alliance thing, because it sucks to get dragged into needless wars that you aren't prepared to fight.

britishjohn
16th Sep 2005, 10:29
I really like some of those ideas about the diplomacy. A protectorate is far more realistic than a peaceful annexation. Personally, I associate the word annex with some sort of military pressure or intervention not diplomacy. Protectorate status would allow nations to garrison trops within that nation and perhaps even levy taxes or recruit troops but not have complete economic control over that nation and its territories. The best example of this I can think of was how Britain and Portugal worked together in the Napoleonic Wars. Britain recruited Portuguese troops in its army in Spain but did not completely control Portugals government or Empire from London. A classic example of a protectorate like relationship.

If a global map were to be introduced though the maximum resource limit for gold, food, raw materials and population would have to be extended over 99999, why this limit was set in the current game I have no idea.

Another idea could be to fortify docks. Maybe it should be possible for a fleet of ships to bombard ports so that they are out of action until repaired. This could be counterbalanced by the ability to fortify ports with coastal guns which the defending player would actually have to control during a siege. Also I think towards the end of the research tree, Artillery units on ships and cannons should have the ability to fire a certain number of exploding cannonballs (shells), which were actually used by Napoleon's guns at Waterloo and were definitely used by Ships in the later Crimean War. However I do think a limit would have to be set on how many of the cannon balls could be fired per battle. For field artillery I think 5-10 maximum, to avoid a First World War style battle with mass infantry being massacred with artillery.

Deaden
20th Sep 2005, 22:03
(if there is one i hope so)in IG 2 were you have it when your the defender you can pick any part of the map to start on besides right net to the emeny and also have abilty to build forts,towers and many other buildings and it would be nice to have a little more depth in the maps like small citys and so forth and during the build screen if you have troops in a contriey you can have it were(if you are the defeder) you have a pre-layout battle plan were the troops will go right to the place were you set them so you don't have to do as much moveing them around your self and you can chose befor battle if you wona use the pre-layout battle plan and you can have up to 3 battle layouts and also it would be nice to have a new building that makes minute men(Grate only) that can be built in citys with out milatary build abilty were if the land gets invaded a set number of the citys(the city has to be built there in order to build this building and need to have populaton added to there in order to train mintue men and the men don't take up food) mintue men there to fight the invaders(mintue men are like line inf)

britishjohn
21st Sep 2005, 14:03
(mintue men are like line inf)

Yes thats right, I suppose the best modern example of minute men is conscription/home guard. Minute men are sort of a mixture between the line infantray and the militia unit. Maybe the minute man could be used to replace the militia unit of the European armies if a new game were made. I think this unit though would have to be pretty poor in performance and perhaps have a limit on the number of volleys it could fire in any one battle, perhaps 3 maximum and then they have to become melee attackers. Also the minute man should not be allowed to invade other nations and should be only a defensive soldier used for guarding the home land.

Also I think the dynamics of a battle would be greatly improved if the lower experienced troops (1&2 Stars) broke ranks when the battle went bad and started to run away and retreat. This would allow the re-enactment of the famous harrassing cavalry charges that were used against retreating ranks. The whole fight to the death of battles seems a little unrealistic when fighting with the lower-end rookie soldiers.

joxer31
21st Sep 2005, 15:06
With this large of a map already, consisting of the European theater, how long would a game take if you add the rest of the world, and not consolidate some of the territory?

Unless that is the aim, is to have a single game last for a few weeks. Would you allow all the pacific islands to be individual territories too? My only fear is that we would get bored with the game long before you conquered everything, especially if you removed the peaceful annexation part, and had to land troops on everything.

Even the current map has a mop up time once you have eliminated everyone except the last 1-2 empires. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

britishjohn
21st Sep 2005, 19:00
With this large of a map already, consisting of the European theater, how long would a game take if you add the rest of the world, and not consolidate some of the territory?

Unless that is the aim, is to have a single game last for a few weeks. Would you allow all the pacific islands to be individual territories too? My only fear is that we would get bored with the game long before you conquered everything, especially if you removed the peaceful annexation part, and had to land troops on everything.

Even the current map has a mop up time once you have eliminated everyone except the last 1-2 empires. Anyway, just my 2 cents.

I accept your point about the length of the game but it is better to be bored of a game and not finish it ( and come back to it in the future to continue) than to be bored of a game because you have done everything on it.

Earlier the idea about protectorates was mentioned, we were basically saying that we didn't want to get rid of annexing but just elaborate the process to make it more interesting and realistic to the period historically.

What would you suggest the game could do with?

joxer31
21st Sep 2005, 19:16
I do like the idea of Empire controlled colonies. That they are almost independent countries themselves that could revolt or add population, income and resources to the empire.

The idea of protectorates is quite intriguing. To be able to recruit other nationalities, but without the economic or militaristic investment to be able to recruit such units. Guess that would have to be based on their tech development, rather than yours.

My concern was that the 2 objectives in Imperial Glory are point based, or conquer the world. Point based is good, just doesnt focus on how much territory you have, but is a more balanced score. Controlling the map is tedious enough as it is without adding that many more territories to control.

My suggestion would be to have other objective based victories. Like controlling 2/3 of the world economy. Or having an overall diplomatic rating above some number like 75. Now that would put much more stock into a worldly map.

Deaden
21st Sep 2005, 23:48
[QUOTE=Also the minute man should not be allowed to invade other nations and should be only a defensive soldier used for guarding the home land.[/QUOTE]

yes that is a good idea well put.
(lol opps i messed up the quote thing :confused: :eek: )

britishjohn
22nd Sep 2005, 09:48
I do like the idea of Empire controlled colonies. That they are almost independent countries themselves that could revolt or add population, income and resources to the empire.

The idea of protectorates is quite intriguing. To be able to recruit other nationalities, but without the economic or militaristic investment to be able to recruit such units. Guess that would have to be based on their tech development, rather than yours.

My concern was that the 2 objectives in Imperial Glory are point based, or conquer the world. Point based is good, just doesnt focus on how much territory you have, but is a more balanced score. Controlling the map is tedious enough as it is without adding that many more territories to control.

My suggestion would be to have other objective based victories. Like controlling 2/3 of the world economy. Or having an overall diplomatic rating above some number like 75. Now that would put much more stock into a worldly map.

Yes, I like that idea. It would bring Imperial Glory in line with a lot of other RTS games where economic victories were possible as well as military ones. I like the diplomacy idea as well.

britishjohn
22nd Sep 2005, 09:57
(if there is one i hope so)in IG 2 were you have it when your the defender you can pick any part of the map to start on besides right net to the emeny and also have abilty to build forts,towers and many other buildings and it would be nice to have a little more depth in the maps like small citys and so forth and during the build screen if you have troops in a contriey you can have it were(if you are the defeder) you have a pre-layout battle plan were the troops will go right to the place were you set them so you don't have to do as much moveing them around your self and you can chose befor battle if you wona use the pre-layout battle plan and you can have up to 3 battle layouts and also it would be nice to have a new building that makes minute men(Grate only) that can be built in citys with out milatary build abilty were if the land gets invaded a set number of the citys(the city has to be built there in order to build this building and need to have populaton added to there in order to train mintue men and the men don't take up food) mintue men there to fight the invaders(mintue men are like line inf)

I think the ability to build expensive forts and defenses would add a whole new dimension to the game. It would be a great help to small nations who want to make their territory as hazardous and difficult to invade for an imperial neighbour as possible. Countries in Europe such as the Germanic nations of Hanover and Saxony are such countries that probably had good fortifications to prevent a take over by Austria or Prussia. I also like your idea about the defender choosing his battlefield position. If the size limitations of the game permitted, it may also be good to have more than one battlefield for each territory and the defender chooses that battlefield they are most suited to defend. Personally, as much as I like the castle for England's capital, I would much rather have London as the final battle ground with all the famous buildings associated with London featured. In fact I think all of the Capitals could be improved and made into larger maps to truly give that feeling of taking a large city.

joxer31
22nd Sep 2005, 13:23
I think the ability to build expensive forts and defenses would add a whole new dimension to the game.

Can you imagine, having your artillery make breaches in the walls of a fort. Having to march your infantry into the breach to try and take the fort. Now that would be as much fun as it would be frustrating.

Sending the men to a certain death. Unlike the Castle in London, where a gate has already been opened for the attackers, the fort has been sealed off and the only way in is where you make it.

Have to use 12 pounders to destroy the walls and make a breach. Enemy then surrounds the one hole you made and hope your troops are strong enough to take the fort.

Maybe I have read too many of the Sharpe books, but that sounds like a great battlefield, even if its only available in quick battle.

britishjohn
23rd Sep 2005, 10:31
With regards to the forts, I suppose my real hangup with the current game is lack of threat that neutral countries pose. The most they can do is attack a non-capital territory and in most cases are easy to overrun. With forts and the ability to attack major territories like capitals, the minor nations would be as threatening as the Empires and would demand more careful strategy. For example, if we can't play as Spain as an Empire, then Spain should be damn hard to conquer as a minor power, same with the Ottoman Empire and both of these countries should be resistant to annexation. Ideally though these countries would be included as empires.

joxer31
23rd Sep 2005, 13:52
Spain should be damn hard to conquer as a minor power, same with the Ottoman Empire and both of these countries should be resistant to annexation. Ideally though these countries would be included as empires.

I agree, Spain gets overrun by Portugal in about every game I play as France. No matter the difficulty lvl. Then Britain annexes Portugal and then Spain.

Actually, I have never seen Britain conquer a neutral territory ever. Its always a political annexation. Its the only power that does that too. Wonder if its because the AI cannot effectively wage war across the ocean or it has been programmed to do so.

Either way, I wish Britain would be more militarily aggressive. I mean, they had colonies on every continent, minus Antartica.

colmde
23rd Sep 2005, 15:09
RTW has a lot of features that I would like to see in IG. It's a pity that putting them in might make people feel like IG was copying RTW, but I'd like to see:

Morale

Multiple battlefields per country

Forts (as someone above suggested)

Also, what would be nice would be unlimited number of men per battle. The only thing limitting should be any logistical problems that may occur. There might not be a computer in the world that can handle the maximum number of men, so the game recognises your system and recommends a maximum for your computer.
As more advanced computers and graphics cards come out, you can increase this maximum in the setup options. For consistency sake, you can only change this when starting a new campaign
(Though this might take away from IG3)

Realistic Friendly Fire problems

Either give us pause and order ability, or limit the computer's ability to issue multiple orders instantly (maybe the difficulty level might dictate how quickly the computer can issue different orders)

britishjohn
24th Sep 2005, 13:52
I am really impressed with some of the ideas presented in this thread by others and even myself. It is a pity that the game developers probably don't look at these forums to generate new ideas for addons. We have between us come up with some very impressive suggestions that would make an Imperial Glory 2 be more exciting and last a lot longer. If only we had the knowledge and resources to make the game ourselves...

colmde
27th Sep 2005, 12:49
The control system needs to be overhauled and made way more user friendly. If they're not going to have the pause and command thing (I can see their point - it ruins the flow of the game, and also you wouldn't be able to do this in real life), you should be able to give orders really quickly, without having to scroll all the way over to the target unit, click on him, then scroll to the position you want to send them to, and click again.

A Suggestion:

Be able to give orders like "Right flank advance a bit", and such, or with the press of a single key, have a bunch of disorganised units line up neatly, or something close to "Fire at will", but give the general direction in which they should fire... such as "attack all enemy units coming from the right", without having to click on each target unit. You know the kind of thing.. "Protect that cannon" will cause the selected unit to run in front of the cannon.

Maybe give the option of controling the selected unit with the cursor keys, so you could edge it forward or backwards easily to "fine-tune" where you wanted them. (e.g. take a few steps to the left if you are getting hit by a friendly artilery piece behind you)

Another Suggestion:

Not sure how doable this would be, but how about pre-arranged set-pieces... You could train your units before a battle to get into certain customised formations, or do a pre-arranged sequence of actions, with certain opt-out clauses... (e.g. stop doing the thing if you're being attacked from the flank, etc.)

Icanus
27th Sep 2005, 23:17
I'd like to see the following in battles:

- A proper "Hold Position" option

- Morale (possibly not in the form of broken units simply turning tail and running, but maybe units that are taking a mauling being slower/unable to change formation or advance, and gradually getting pushed back)

- A complete re-thinking of militia (as others have said, more along the lines of unskilled, undisciplined line infantry)

- cavalry flowing around squares and taking fire from all sides.

- a skirmish formation for light infantry (less damage from ranged fire, but greater vulnerability to melee)

- reliable "Custom" formations for groups of units (so that when you move a group they stay in formation relative to each other - this already happens most of the time, but they always seem to decide to snap back into one of the default formations at the worst possible moment).

- a unit should not be able to fire through another unless they are on a slope.

There are a few cosmetic things I'd like to see too (they wouldn't need to actually affect the game in any way, but would just look nice):

- Officers/standard bearers

- squares being proper hollow squares, rather than a solid mass of troops.

britishjohn
30th Sep 2005, 15:26
squares being proper hollow squares, rather than a solid mass of troops.

Yes, this would be good for protecting artillery units from charging enemies, one gun squad per square.

Also have you noticed that militia often just walk straight through the square when they are repelled instead of hitting the bayonets head on, some dying, and then turning around and retreating. This advancing through and behind the square should be stopped and they should be funnled towards the flanks of the squares as was mentioned in a previous post.

hardyea
2nd Oct 2005, 17:52
I think the Countries Souldn't Be Able to take it by peace but only by war!

britishjohn
3rd Oct 2005, 22:51
I think that more than one power should be able to be present on a battlefield. So if Austria and Prussia form a coalition against Russia, and the both invade Minsk, then the Russian army should have to fight both allies at the same time. This would allow bttles such as Austerlitz and Waterloo to be recreated more accurately, where the French took on two enemies at one point in the battles. It would also eliminate the unfair advantage that one big army has over two smaller ones by just destroying them one after another instead of together.

Image the strategy required for a three way battle? Three countries all at war trying to win...An example would be Britain and France at war with each other and Spain, fighting for control of Castile (Spanish Capital territory).

The other thing that bugs me is how troops in a line facing a set direction, automatically turn and reposition themselves to keep shooting at an enemy on the flanks. They should not move unless you tell them to or you have auto-battle on.

ST0MPA
5th Oct 2005, 04:49
they did it in the trafalgar battle in the historical battles, you get french and spanish ships against english