PDA

View Full Version : Quick games..a little too quick



DeathToEmo
12th Oct 2005, 15:09
What annoys me with the Quick game option is..it is literally quick.

After fine tuning my deployment positions...the enemy just sends everything they have in one rabble, with no structure at all..just one large mass of horses,cannons and infantry. The average quick game lasts 3 minutes for me...as the fightings basically over then..is there anyway to stop the Ai being so stupid? Battles were carefully planned...not just..cmon lets run at em and see what happens..

Also, is there any way to change maps and castles and such..im getting bored of the same castle defend map for England

ytareh
12th Oct 2005, 19:14
Try setting cannon range to a more realistic 1300-2000m and you mighnt even get the full three minutes -talk about death from above.Cannon blow each other up and then the one or two arty pieces left decimate infantry....

Hengist_Sharpe
12th Oct 2005, 22:09
Keep at it, eventually you'll get so bored, you'll stop playing and it'll be the end of the problem.

It worked for me :)

La Neige
30th Oct 2005, 21:30
In single-player, it's much more interesting to play campaigns. While quick game is quite useless when you fight the computer, it's a lot of fun online, so maybe it was designed for that. At first I thought that there would be nothing interesting about online games at all with the way they are set up, but once I tried, I fell in love with the game.

- LeHussardNeigeux

ytareh
30th Oct 2005, 23:18
Well I ONLY play quick/historical battles not into the grand strategy thing at all....Theres a lot you can do with the mods of icanus and Godkin to improve the game which can be used to slow it down....(bigger units etc)not to mention the Speed up/slow down button in the 1.1 patch!!!(which can become a crutch which is hard to wean yourself off...)

Wagram
4th Dec 2005, 17:26
In single-player, it's much more interesting to play campaigns.

- LeHussardNeigeux

I'm also a campaign person but I'm not too impressed by the campaign format in IG. . . yet.

There leaves a lot to be desired as far as information. As far as I know, you've no idea how many troops you need in place when your're sieging a capitol province until there is a partisan army that shows up that you have to fight. That's the kind of info that is handy to be aware of so that you can be sure you have the number of troops in place to avoid it.

Also, I could have collected the Railway quest but was waiting to do it until I took Hanover, when suddenly I find out that Russia collected it. Even Civilization 2 would let you know if another nation was about to fulfil a quest that you were working on too.

The info in the manual is basic to the extreme and the info on the game disc is also.

I also have to say what is up with the guys with clubs? :confused: I've done a fair amount of reading on Napoleonic warfare and I don't remember anything describing guys with clubs which seem to be the mainstay of armies in this game.

I have to say this game engine does not reflect the tactics of the period very well.

Cossacks 2; which has a much different battlefield perspective (IG IS more realistic looking), still resolves battles A LOT more in line with Napoleonic era tactics. Plus the troops are much easier to control, AND you can pause and give orders, an important feature this game engine should have when it seems to favor charging, club-wielding mob warfare over the more realistic disciplined meticulous positioning of Napoleonic warfare. I can understand the idea that when you're in real battle you don't have a pause button, but the fact is that battles in comp. games are always greatly compressed as far as time goes. From what I've seen you have to finish a battle within a half hour; real battles have never been fought in that short a period of time.

Another thing, I send my troops to cross a river and instead of taking the bridge (which Cossacks 2 will automatically do), my troops walk THROUGH the river right next to the bridge. :confused:

To me, these, and other examples, show that this really is an unfinished or poorly thought out game. Cossacks 2, while having a poor campaign format, at least has a well done battle format. There doesn't seem to be anything well done in IG except the graphics. :(

I applaud Eidos for their efforts to make an outstanding Napoleonic warfare game but not their results. To me it seems they aimed for something beyond their reach, or got tired of the effort to try and get there.

I really was looking forward to this game, especially the strategic aspect since I like a more realistic nation simulation, instead of just build and kill. They seem to have a diplomatic engine very similar to Europa Universalis which I like (though I don't like EU's battle resolutions).

Well, sorry I've rambled. I'll let it go. I've got stuff to do. I just hope they renovate things a bit more.

c00lizz
4th Dec 2005, 19:15
There leaves a lot to be desired as far as information. As far as I know, you've no idea how many troops you need in place when your're sieging a capitol province until there is a partisan army that shows up that you have to fight. That's the kind of info that is handy to be aware of so that you can be sure you have the number of troops in place to avoid it.[/I

That sounds a little unrealistic to me, nobody has ever known exactly what size army is needed to prevent uprisings. And besides, it's probably coded with a random factor.

[I]Also, I could have collected the Railway quest but was waiting to do it until I took Hanover, when suddenly I find out that Russia collected it. Even Civilization 2 would let you know if another nation was about to fulfil a quest that you were working on too.

The quests are collected instantly. You don't "build" the quests so to speak so there is no message to be given to you. Russia started and completed the quest with one click of a button in the same turn.

I also have to say what is up with the guys with clubs? I've done a fair amount of reading on Napoleonic warfare and I don't remember anything describing guys with clubs which seem to be the mainstay of armies in this game.

Agreed, millita is horrible in early game.

Another thing, I send my troops to cross a river and instead of taking the bridge (which Cossacks 2 will automatically do), my troops walk THROUGH the river right next to the bridge.

Never really had that problem unless my troops are already in line position or ordered directly across a river.

Wagram
5th Dec 2005, 02:14
The quests are collected instantly. You don't "build" the quests so to speak so there is no message to be given to you. Russia started and completed the quest with one click of a button in the same turn.

[I]Another thing, I send my troops to cross a river and instead of taking the bridge (which Cossacks 2 will automatically do), my troops walk THROUGH the river right next to the bridge.

Never really had that problem unless my troops are already in line position or ordered directly across a river.

Well, at least on the game I bought there is a box that comes up that gives you the ability to click on a box that says "collect", if all the quest's requirements have been fulfilled, which I had done (all the check boxes in mine window were checked off that I had completed them). I was waiting to take over Hanover so I could get a free sawmill built there as well when a couple of turns later I was informed that Russia fulfilled it.

As far as the river, my troops were still in column formation. The only thing I can think of is I need to download a patch. I'll try that.

General Skobby
23rd Dec 2005, 16:06
But IG hand-to-hand is much more realistic

I dont get this:

Line infantry get killed by militia in hand to hand!!