PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Glory: Stand Alone Expansion Version-a Suggestion To Eidos



BANANAMAN
14th Nov 2005, 12:13
Hi there folks! :)

Hi there Eidos. :)

This thread is for all to read, but it's meant directly for pc games publisher Eidos.

Dear Eidos,

Why Oh Why have you accepted a half-finished pc title like Imperial Glory? In this way you are ruining your own reputation and that of Pyrostudios. My suggestion to you is to let Pyrostudios take this Imperial Glory software engine and make an stand alone expansion version like many others do in the pc game industry (for example, such as the Total War series).

Why? Because the graphics is perfect, the sounds is perfect but the game-design and the gameplay just sux big time. And patches just are'nt enough to fill in this big gap of flaws.

The followings are the improvements which are needed in a stand alone expansion of Imperial Glory:

- A hold ground command button. And with hold ground I do mean HOLD GROUND and not that a group formation moves clockwise or moves at all without direct orders from the gamer.

- A pause and giving orders during pause is a big must!

- The cannon firing range is way too short, make it a little bit longer please.

- I understand from this forum that the Imperial Glory engine can take a maximum of 7.000 soldiers on a battlemap. 6.000 maximum soldiers on a battlemap should be implemented, so that you have a more full battlemap giving the gamer the feeling he is playing a Napoleonic pc game not a Age of Empires game with so few soldier figures. 6.000 maximum soldiers on a battlemap so to give the Imperial Glory engine a marge of 1.000 soldiers so not to overload it.

And dont give the gamer this quality excuse of 2.000 maximum on screen just to get non-static soldiers, because Napoleonic soldiers DO behave staticly. In the original Imperial Glory with its 2.000 maximum on screen soldiers and horsemen behave like a bunch of canabis junkies swaying with their heads and making uncontrolable movement fits as if they are stoned or something. Even the cavalry horses look like they are on drugs.

- The AI: the enemy AI (Artificial Intellingence) sends its army towards you not like an European army in a disciplened Napoleonic manner but like a savage tribe/angry mob all cloth up manner. Please do something about the enemy CPU AI.

That's it for now. If anyone else wants to add their improvement ideas for an expansion version of Imperial Glory, please feel free to do so.

And to Eidos, thank you for your time, I hope you are listening to your customers because no-one wants to pay money so to get a half-finished product not even when you go to the bakery-shop for to buy bread.

c00lizz
14th Nov 2005, 14:29
The Total War series have never made a standalone expansion. Each new TW game(Shogun, Medieval, Rome) has had a new engine. The expansions(Mongol Invasion, Viking Invasion, Barbarian Invasion) are not standalone. Standalone expanions are fairly rare due to the fact that it is much more profitable for a gaming company to sell two games per gamer than one game per gamer. Pure logic.

A standalone expansion would be a waste of time. Either focus on making Imperial Glory better(Patches, SDK, Expansion) or focus on making a completly new game.

BANANAMAN
15th Nov 2005, 16:57
Standalone expansion or just an expansion or a sequel, one of these are absolutly nessescary. Patches are to fix bugs not to fix game-design.

What I'm trying to say here is that Eidos and Pyrostudios should re-do or re-make Imperial Glory, because Imperial Glory as now it is, is not 50 euros worth buying it but 5 euros worth buying it.

So, again, I hope that Eidos and Pyrostudios are listening to their customers of what their customers want not what they (Eidos & Pyrostudios) want. When you go to a restaurant you want to order what you want to consume not what the chef-cook or waiter or boss of the joint wants you to consume. Same thing here.

Oh yes, I almost forgot one more feature for a Imperial Glory2 or Imperial Glory: the expansion:

- all troops move wayy too fast, please implement a speed-slider so that the gamer can decide for his own what speed he feels comfortable with (fast, slow or in between). Thank you.

I also hope to get some serious reaction(s) from Eidos here, because it's under their responsibility that this half-finished Imperial Glory was released.

Mike_B
15th Nov 2005, 18:16
So, again, I hope that Eidos and Pyrostudios are listening to their customers of what their customers want not what they (Eidos & Pyrostudios) want.

So they need to make your game then?



When you go to a restaurant you want to order what you want to consume not what the chef-cook or waiter or boss of the joint wants you to consume. Same thing here.

When you're going to a restaurant the cook decides how he/she makes it though. You know that and it's the reason you're going there in the first place because chef x or y is good a let's say making an excellent steak in his/her very own and unique way. Basicly that's the same with game design. They design it the way they envision it.



- all troops move wayy too fast, please implement a speed-slider so that the gamer can decide for his own what speed he feels comfortable with (fast, slow or in between).

There's a speed slider in the 1.1 patch, unless you mean something else.

c00lizz
16th Nov 2005, 01:34
There is a speedslider in the patch and movement speed can otherwise be modded. It's a very small thing.

Since you brought up RTW before you might want to know that when RTW was release everybody was whining about the movement and killing speed. That was, until people modded them to be slower..

Oststar
16th Nov 2005, 07:21
I have to agree with @tm on this one: why would a company make a game for one person?

But I also wholeheartedly agree with Bananaman that there are major flaws with Imperial Glory. Personally, and I accept I am just one person, but I believe I speak for the majority of the community, there are several things i'd like to see implemented/improved.

First off I'd rather see an expansion, along the lines of United Offensive(FPS game), that so totally changes the original that it almost replaces it, not like Art of Conquest that was just an easy way to make money. I'd prefer an expansion to an IG2 because the engine is a masterpiece, therefore that doesn't need improving, expansions are also generally cheaper than full version games, too, and if the reviews did well for IG:E (Imperial Glory: Expansion), then people who were disappointed by IG might buy the Expansion to correct what they felt was wrong with the original. It's a win for the gamers: we want improvements, and a win for Pyro/Eidos: they want money.

Now to what I'd actually like to see myself, and I know, that's a little pretentious perhaps, but I gave IG a fair bit of thought since I got my new machine that can run IG to it's full beautiful extent and I tried to think from what is possible and from the view of different parties.

1) Retreating: the current system, an army, no matter how engaged, just stops and turns up 100 miles away in another territory that you don't get to choose. A system could be implemented whereby a unit (Inf/Cav/Art) has to be within a certain threshold of the edge of the playable area for a certain amount of time, and then, unless engaged in melee combat, can leave the map. If they're engaged in melee, they can't, if they're engaged in ranged then they take some casualties when they leave the map. If they're unengaged they leave unmolested. Depending on where they were on the map determines the zone they retreat to.

Because an army has to reach a certain place, a player would more often see armies 'break and run', with cavalry either leading the rout, or staying as a rearguard while infantry flees. It would add a whole new dimension to the game to make choices like which units to sacrifice or save et cetra.

2) Weather Effects: surely seasonal maps could be introduced, say

-Spring: best season, dry and warm, good for charges and movement
-Summer: units fatigue faster because of the heat, terrain remains good for charges and movement
-Autumn: rainy, causes weapons to misfire and hence do less damage, ground isn't as good for charging as it is soggy
-Winter: snowy, slows down units and makes artillery almost unusable, charges are difficult.

I gave this a fair bit of consideration and I think it's possible?

3) Research: basicly the player had to research everything, or it made sense to do so, leaving little customisation of empires. But it took to long, and too many unit types were hidden behind heavy research restrictions. I'd suggest having more researches that branched off the main stream of researches, and less categories. For example in the first era, have researches that improve specific units, a research that improves the firing rate of riflemen will be good for someone who uses riflemen, but useless to someone who doesn't. Or research that makes ships of the line marginally stronger. An Austrian nation mightn't touch it, but Britain will jump at it. Also blocking a lot of researches until the third era was historically highly inaccurate: the Imperial Guard was in action before 1810, unless I'm mistaken and Britain had frigates well before the turn of the century.

4) Objectives. Please have them for all maps rather than just 'total victory' as 'total victory' is how most are won anyway, and even if they were, it's already a selectable victory condition.

5) Morale: the vast majority think a morale system is needed. Really, it was rare for Napoleonic units to fight to the death, more often they'd fall back against orders, or at worst, break and run, and get massacred that way. Combined with a new retreating system like I suggested there'd be a new aspect to the game where units tried to get to the retreatable area.

6) Artillery: there should be roundshot for long range and armoured targets (Buildings et cetra), grape for medium range, and canister for short. When artillery is destroyed in battle a portion should be considered 'captured' and be sent to your nearest foundry, it should show up as a unit of cannon with casualties, from your country, not from the country it was captured from.

7) Prisoners: there should be several prisoners taken in a victory, from each defeated Cav Squadron, Arty Battery or Inf Battalion, if Austria defeats Poland in Bavaria, there should be several Poles taken prisoner. These should then be added to a counter of some sort and be traded for prisoners your enemy has of your men or money, as well as released to gain sympathy, or executed to get rid of them and deny your enemy the population. Prisoners should also be taken from captured ships.

8) Active Pause, a lot want it. I don't much care for it, but to those that do, it's rather an important feature.

9) More unit controls, like skirmish, fall back, hold position (IE don't move at all), stand ground (don't fall back et cetra), form square, form hollow square (IE several units so you can protect arty or cav in the centre).

10) Add officer, drummer/fifer, and standard bearer models to a battalion, as supernumaries (IE they don't count towards the 60 men).

11) Ships should have to be placed inside a naval yard to be repaired. When they're repaired they can't be taken out of the yard for that turn. Infantry should be the same, but with barracks instead of Naval Yards.

12) Naval Game: I wrote several paragraphs before deciding that there's too much to suggest to be taken seriously. But ships need to take Personnel damage from roundshot, as well as a little rigging damage. Grapeshot should do more personnel damage, but at shorter range, and chain shot should do rigging damage at short ranges too.

13) Potential for more units on the field. Big battles, really big.

These are just things I've considered would make IG the best RTS possible, I doubt Pyro will ever see these suggestions (And being spanish, understand them), but if they'd give the community a chance to voice suggestions then they could collate what's possible and what's not, then create this new game. I put forward problems that were important to me and to a majority of people, and put forward solutions I have thought of or occasionally heard of. I tried to keep the improvements within reason. Even though I doubt Pyro wants my advise, it felt good to try.

BANANAMAN
20th Nov 2005, 11:58
I can see that only one person/fan has taken my thread seriously.

First of all, all I want to achieve here is to get a better version of IG from its developers themselves not from mods & modders.

Secondly, I speak from myself but many dissapointed fans like me would agree on me with my thread. So, in reality there is a group of gamers who would like to say what I'm saying but (for whatever reason) dare not. So, it's not just one person who is speaking here.

And should Eidos & Pyrostudios not want to do anything about re-doing or re-making Imperial Glory then it's their problem, because it's their reputation making and releasing pc games not mine.

I hope Eidos & Pyrostudios are not offended by my thread but happy that someone has woke them up and pointed at their weaknesses so to make them more strong.

Or maybe they never will read my thread and will sleep on or they will read my thread and do as if they didnt hear me and will sleep on.

In any case, I have said my say and the rest is all up to Eidos & Pyrostudios.



PS. with the restaurant thing where you decide what to consume and what not, not what the waiter or chef-cook want: what I mean here is that in a normal economic situation the customer is king not the producer is king.

Czar
20th Nov 2005, 16:03
You still here BANANAMAN?

I take it they still aren't listening?

c00lizz
20th Nov 2005, 20:09
Your thread would have so much more basis if you actually knew a bit more about what you're talking about though. Your references to RTW, asking for features already in the game etc.

Your basic idea is good enough and I support your little cursade but your arguements are simply not worth it.

Oststar
21st Nov 2005, 07:06
...but your arguements are simply not worth it.

Getting the devs to put in certain controls properly et cetra isn't worthless. Granted BANANAMAN didn't address some of the more major flaws, but if he shakes up pyro enough to consider an expansion, a good expansion... Well, that's worth millions.

It seems increasingly unlikely that Pyro will read this as even Jaycw is AWOL these days...

Czar
21st Nov 2005, 11:08
Guys,

Games companies form their own ideas on what games should be like very early in development.
It is becoming very rare for any company to listen to gamers now. :(

Early on (before the game was released) a few of us suggested many of the mods that were requested after release.
Pyro had different ideas and had their own plan on how the game would work and what it would be like.

That is what IG became.

I am sure they still believe they were / are right. What makes you think you can change their minds?

c00lizz
21st Nov 2005, 18:19
Getting the devs to put in certain controls properly et cetra isn't worthless. Granted BANANAMAN didn't address some of the more major flaws, but if he shakes up pyro enough to consider an expansion, a good expansion... Well, that's worth millions.

It seems increasingly unlikely that Pyro will read this as even Jaycw is AWOL these days...


As I said... The concept of trying to convince the devs to patch the game/suggestions for a sequel I agree with.

But when you present your topic as Bananaman did all you do is hurt that idea. His arguements aren't worth it because the logic is flawed and he knows little of the examples he uses.

The drunk guy outside running around yelling "The sky is falling down!!" helps which side of the arguement?

Oststar
22nd Nov 2005, 07:27
Guys,

Games companies form their own ideas on what games should be like very early in development.
It is becoming very rare for any company to listen to gamers now. :(

Early on (before the game was released) a few of us suggested many of the mods that were requested after release.
Pyro had different ideas and had their own plan on how the game would work and what it would be like.

That is what IG became.

I am sure they still believe they were / are right. What makes you think you can change their minds?

Czar, I've followed Imperial Glory since it was announced, I downloaded the demo the moment I could and babysat the whole several hour download. I went to buy the game the day it came out only to be disappointed by a later release date and more delays. After the demo was released I was posting here, suggesting and surprised that Pyro took some advise on board. I was also here when they disappeared after launch and ignored us all the way up to the cop out 1.1 patch. I was disappointed. I still vainly hope for an expansion, a revitalisation of IG.

On another note, after a long absense I'm back and I've found IG still has several things going for it: not least is a somewhat centralised community focusing on TAFN, Eidosforums or both. That could be utilised to achieve quite a bit.

Czar
22nd Nov 2005, 12:15
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=43936&page=1&pp=25

Oststar
27th Nov 2005, 08:43
Sorry, I don't see your point?

Czar
18th Dec 2005, 01:40
My point was that many of the things that players wanted after the game was released had already been suggested before the game was released.

The fact is that Pyro made certain design decisions about the game and they were convinced that they were right despite the fact many people (not just me) suggested to them perhaps they should at least let gamers test and provide feedback before going retail.

Again, they decided they knew better.

We couldn't change their mind then, you makes you think anyone can do it now? :confused: