PDA

View Full Version : Game worth the money?



yeomanrycavalry
28th Nov 2005, 08:26
I'm wondering what is everybody's opinion of encouraging others to buy the game. Also would it be a good lesson plan for military history or another bad gaming program trying to fantasize history as it wasn't?

:)

officerpuppy
28th Nov 2005, 20:46
I think it is. :thumbsup:

Whether your a hardcore historian or a casual gamer, the game offers enough to for both to keep things interesting, plus there are alot of mods around that add to the game experience as well.

hardyea
29th Nov 2005, 00:11
I say Buy it. Its a fun game.

Wagram
29th Nov 2005, 03:14
Just ordered it off the net yesterday. I've been playing Cossacks 2, Napoleonic Wars and I really like how you fight the battles but the Strategic part is kind of weak (this is in their "Battle for Europe" mode).

However, in the battles they do have a pause and give commands option which I heard they don't have in IG, although I think I've heard they have a slider? that enables you to slow the speed down to issue orders.

So can you tell me how it plays? Do the soldiers still fight to the death or can you withdraw them from a fight on the battle field? I've heard the strategic part is pretty awesome; good diplomacy etc. True? How about development of resources, trade etc.?

southpark
5th Dec 2005, 15:45
Personlly the stratigic part is ****, u cant withdraw once in mele and this sux, this really needs to be fixed before they get a I G 2

there are very little things u acn to in the way of stratagies involving the land and defences. the main stratigie is waht knida infantry u use

ricca
6th Dec 2005, 23:01
Ive really gotten wrapped up in this game. The more
I play , the more I learn about it, hence the more I enjoy it.

It sounds simple but thats what keeps me involved. I wouldnt worry too
about the historical aspect of it. As you are playing you are making your own history.

There are some things I would like to see changed technically but I live with them.
I would imagine that some day Ill exaust all the avenues and may tire of it.
but for now,.. Who shall be my next victim :D

c00lizz
11th Dec 2005, 19:43
The stragtegic map is very well done however the tactical aspect of the game requires a bit of modding to become enjoyable.

southpark
14th Dec 2005, 19:35
can u do that mister ill awnser all the posts
which has bvasicaly been covered?>#

RagingKozak
15th Dec 2005, 18:05
I have to say that I'm really really enjoying this game. The strategic realities of this game are great. You can't just attack everybody and expect no one to turn on you and take advantage. You have to protect your borders and really concentrate on preparing supply lines. It simulates the planning it took for real wars very well. The political system gives you the most options I think I have ever seen and the technology tree leaves plenty of avenues to explore.

The battles part of the game could use improvement but it does its job and the sea battles are cool. The controls take a while to get used to but it is servicable. The planning towards the battle is what this game concentrates on and I like that. There are improvements that can be made to this game but I have to say that I have enjoyed my experience so far.

General Skobby
23rd Dec 2005, 15:51
This game is quite similar to Rome:Total War if someone has played that.
The imperial map is almost the same and battles are similarly controlled. But the sea battles are a very good-realistic new idea.

By the way a Russian game "Legion" III has one of the best Diplomatic controls. Your diplomats can get experience and at the end you can get up to 30 options to carry out.

screamingpalm
24th Dec 2005, 18:44
@yeomanrycavalry:

This game is more fantasizing of history than accurate. It is/was sort of fun (a little) as mutiplayer- not historically accurate at all though. As a single player game I would reccommend 2nd Manassas from the guys at Mad Minute Games. I had preordered the game, but it is delayed a bit because they are in the process of landing a major publishing deal (which is good news- means they will be able to put out more games). They gave a Beta version to all of us that preordered the game, and it is absolutely awesome. There is no multiplayer yet, but I think that it will be in their next release. Best singleplayer game out there, and made by some really nice guys. I was lucky enough to get a copy of their first game, it is now extremely hard to find.

I'll sell you my copy of this game dirt cheap if you want. :D I can't play it online anyway becuse of lack of support here and no lobby for the game.

yeomanrycavalry
25th Dec 2005, 04:13
Awesome Game!!! I love it. However, I do agree the melee mode should have a retreat option. Otherwise, the graphics and soundtracks are fantastic!!!!!!! This is one of the best games that I have seen in years. :thumbsup:

Wagram
25th Dec 2005, 12:56
As much as I do have some complaints I've been enjoying it a lot. The strategic mode is definitely better than a lot of what's out there. The feel of it is actually a lot like Europa Universalis, even down to the small round shields symbolising the countries. I do think EU had a better diplomacy mode though.

I don't get why relations go down so quickly between major powers though. Also, even when I my relations could'nt get worse with one of them, they ask me to be their ally.

Anyway, tactically, after getting used to the guys with clubs (which I still don't like), I enjoy the battles. I like the fact that when a volley of guns go off a charging group of cavalry will lose a substantial number of guys instead of losing "hit points" and still be able to fight you full strength.

One thing I don't like is that you fight on the same battlefield whenever you fight in a particular territory. TW varies the battlefield, giving you the possibility of fighting in, I think 4, different battlefields per territory.

I would however, like to see each territory broken up into their proper boundaries though, i.e. having an Alsace and Lorraine, etc. instead of a huge arbitray mass of territory that an invader can take all at once. EU did it, AND with a world map; not just Europe and North Africa.

Anyway, overall I like the game. It's def. enjoyable! :thumbsup:

General Skobby
25th Dec 2005, 16:33
Melle is much better than in TW but the historical accuracy is lacking a lot of basic things.

Also this freaks me out: Militia take out Line Infantry!

yeomanrycavalry
30th Dec 2005, 16:02
My first experience with RTS is really with Age of Empires II: Age of Kings and I thought it was pretty fun, but lacking in ability to see the world around me at a different camera angle. I wanted better graphics and eventually that would come with AoE III. When I recently tried Total War: Rome I was coming off of the Battle For Middle Earth high with its awesome graphics, though I was in no way impressed with TW in terms of graphics, I really enjoyed the new views of the playing field and being able to control a massive force of fighters. I was hoping the Barbarian Invasion package would have much improved graphics (not). However, when Imperial Glory came out and I tried it as a demo, I really felt (and still do) the game has potential and the graphics for an RTS are the best I have ever seen. Though I was more into the Medieval and Dark Age fighting factions, I've found this era (Imperial Age) to be quite interesting too. It certainly is the last era where horses were used in massive numbers and then came to end during the Boer's Wars with the Imperial Yeomanry and early WWI.

Lochar
31st Dec 2005, 02:39
I just got this game the other day...

At first I thought it was really fun and had alot of options, and a bit more depth than RTW, but due toi lack of pause, major battles are like arcade sims, which get hard to control and result in melee.

Ships battles are a nightmare to control if more than 1 ship at a time.

I seen somewhere above that there is a time slider which may help, but then your reduced to a crawling combat.

There are objectives to win on land battles and maybe my armies havent been big enough yet , but they just basically boil down to winning the map by killing the enemy. I have yet a chance to use my cannons on offense as they are slow getting to the fight and by the time they get there , its too late.

The tactical gameplay is not bad, but most times the AI does more economic fighting than war, which is a nice variety but after about 100 turns with no fighting it gets boring. True I havent tried all the difficulty settings yet, but with the fast paced combat, not sure I would like a 24/7 war going.

The documents are sparse, the tutorial covers a brief segment of each aspect but it still feels lacking.

With a pause command, and a better strategy setup for AI, this would be a great game, as for multiplayer, it maybe fun if rules are established before the fighting, but as of now I cant help thinking I should have saved my money and waited for it to show up as a bargain bin game.

Oh and the graphics on my card are glitchy, an ati 700 series, recent drivers, and changing settings doesnt seem to matter.


This one feels like another rushed out the door before it was fully polished.

Lochar
31st Dec 2005, 02:42
Melle is much better than in TW but the historical accuracy is lacking a lot of basic things.

Also this freaks me out: Militia take out Line Infantry!


Its funny but when I was feeling wealthy I decided to remove all my milita units for Line troops, and man I couldn't believe how bad they were getting beatup by the cheaper militia. Heck my grenadiers didnt push them over that much either.

yeomancavalry
1st Jan 2006, 13:55
@yeomanrycavalry:

This game is more fantasizing of history than accurate. It is/was sort of fun (a little) as mutiplayer- not historically accurate at all though.

Yeah, I think sometimes a little artistic license needs to be thrown in just to keep things interesting if the historic battle is lacking information or the plot of the story needs something to keep us interested. Jackson did the same w/ Lord of the Rings trilogy and it worked well, and unless we were able to have a complete accurate account of these battles or even fictional battles, we'll never know the whole story behind of what actually happened on those days or what was meant by the author. So it's not unusual for books, movies, and video games to not be 100% accurate on how the story really went (which is unfortunate in a way). At least these guys have a great graphics engine to start off with, and it certainly has vast potential for improvements. As long as they don't create some units that never existed at all, I'll be okay with it. That is why I am no longer playing EA's worthless BFME II.

Lochar
2nd Jan 2006, 03:24
As long as they don't create some units that never existed at all, I'll be okay with it. That is why I am no longer playing EA's worthless BFME II.


Is that game out? I am not sure why you wouldnt play it tho as that whole game was based off fiction and not history, I think its nice to be able to play dwarves and elves even tho they were not mentioned alot in the book. That game is no different than the warhammer game coming out, its all fantasy based.

yeomancavalry
4th Jan 2006, 00:17
Warhammer has IMO more flexibility than LoTR should as the writer for LoTR is deceased and it would be wrong to add things that doesn't 'fit' the world of Middle Earth. Yes, I am somewhat of a purist when it comes to these kind of things. Probably more so with non-fictional stories and battles. When EA puts Goblins riding on scorpions (which don't exist in Tolkien's fantasy), in a way it moves away from the spirit of the literature and is the beginning of making it into something totally not Tolkien but somebody elses idea of the fantasy. Warhammer and especially D&D are okay for that kind of stuff, but respect for the work and maintaining a degree of accuracy (even with some artistic licesnse) is a must. That is why Jackson's movies for the most part went over well with most Tolkien enthusiasts even if some things were not included or mentioned, or lines given to another character. He didn't distort it into his own fantasy and kept it Tolkien's fantasy as much as he could.

More Importantly:

Imperial Glory probably has a lot more riding on credibility of historical unit and battle accuracy, even so, this game is off to great start and hopefully we'll get more accurate historic units to fight with or against with upgrades. Even if the ships are bit of work to control, it's still a lot of fun. Like I said before, the graphics are simply wonderful and hopefully we'll get more landscaping and structures.

Lefebvre
6th Jan 2006, 19:22
Worth every penny.
If I had the money back I'd spent on IG I'd spend it on IG.

Picton
16th Jan 2006, 09:27
Despite the problems I have read with this game, most people who are interested in 19th century warfare will enjoy this game. My biggest complaint is the range of the artillery - way to short.

Wagram
16th Jan 2006, 13:46
Despite the problems I have read with this game, most people who are interested in 19th century warfare will enjoy this game. My biggest complaint is the range of the artillery - way to short.

I agree with that and I would also add that it's not clear what the range is. It would be nice to have some kind of range graphic that could be turned on with a hot key so you could see where you need to place your cannons instead of just trial and error.

officerpuppy
16th Jan 2006, 17:28
There are mods that increase the range of all the guns. And when you unlimber your guns, press V, you get a radius to show up which covers the range of your guns.

Xenophon
25th Jan 2006, 22:31
Not worth the money!

go...go... Medieval 2: Total War! :D

Dasara II
19th Feb 2006, 03:08
I only brought this game a couple of weeks ago. I held off because the reviews indicated the battle were too fast and I was very disappointed that the Ottomans were not a playable empire.

But I bit the bullet and got it a couple of weeks ago because I was on holidays. Find the vanilla game very enjoyable, this game has sooooo much potential that I hope that there is a IG 2 :)

Was surprised me was how good the 3D battles are, they are fantastic and I am a very dedicated Total War player also. I enjoy these battle because this Cannon and Musket era is my favorite.

I would say it is worth full price just for the battles and it has just become more enjoyable since I installed to Battlemod 1.2. The Battlemod makes the 3D battle so much more a slug fest and I love it!

If you like these era, you will like this game :thumbsup:

Tyford
20th Feb 2006, 11:01
Does anybody know how much it is?

I have to say that Imperial Glory seems to only have five nations playable, and how many are unplayable? Does Imperial Glory have good AI, better than RTW (Rome: Total War, which has basic AI that can be beaten easily)? The diplomacy system is good from what I can tell. I like the look of Imperial Glory as it has the campaign map of MTW (Medieval Total War, my avourite strategy game) and graphics comparable to RTW. Is it good?

Thank you

Lefebvre
20th Feb 2006, 13:07
Does anybody know how much it is?
Check your local stockist, but you should pay no more than about £10 these days. In fact you could get it delivered free from Play.com for a tenner until recently if you're UK based. If you see it for less even better, it's worth a whole lot more to me anyhow.


and how many are unplayable?
Off the top of my head I counted 19. However there are mods that change that.


Does Imperial Glory have good AI..
It has 3 difficulty ratings so you should be able to find it a challenge. Again there are mods to alter the way the AI plays.


Is it good?
Absolutely.
One of the best games I ever played. It has a few minor glitches and flaws, but hey, it's a terrific game. Read the other posts on this board to get an idea of what people figure are its strengths and weaknesses.
There are also a range of game mods out that make it endlessly enjoyable and replayable (as if it needed mods to be that lol).

Have you played the demo? If not do so, it's a fair representation of the battle mode of the finished game.

Hope that helps dude.

hen5ri
20th Feb 2006, 13:20
There are mods that increase the range of all the guns. And when you unlimber your guns, press V, you get a radius to show up which covers the range of your guns.

You get guns with longr range later in the game when you can upgrade.

Henri

Tyford
20th Feb 2006, 18:58
Thank you for replying, Lefebvre

Sloth
8th Apr 2006, 06:55
Keep in mind, you are asking this is a forum full of people who like the game enough to be in a forum about the game lol.

Realm Lord
7th May 2006, 20:18
well im going to get the game sometime this week.i have played the demo a good bit and i like it. but i do need to say this in support of the total war series. it does have good graphics, better than imperial glory,well atleast mine does, what type of graphics card do you have, i have rome maxed out on eveything. and you must play it on easy, cause if you play it on the hardest diffculty like i do, its very hard to beat. and med:2 will blow rome out of the water, it looks so good.well i do need one question answered about imperial glory, what is the max number of troops you can get on the field of battle, i know with the total war series(RTW) i can get over 20,000 troops, but thats when i have like 8 countries at one time. in a normal battle i can get 8000, thats in the campaingne and thats with me fighting another country,thanks in advance.

Ninurta
7th Jul 2006, 12:45
Definitely Worth the money- for the fun I've had with it, I payed eleven euros, which actually seems a very fair price for a game like this to me. I still think the Total War series is better and goes higher up on the list, but just because IG doesn't meet the very steep standard set by creative assembly doesn't mean it isn't worth a go. If you're not convinced, find a local game syndicate and doss around on it for an hour or so.