PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Glory and Rome Total War



Marshall Thomas
13th Sep 2006, 05:52
Hi- this is my first post. I haven't bought Imperial Glory, but I'm about to. While I'm waiting for it, I'm curious to know how is it similar and different to Rome Total War. What are some players favorite features in Imperial Glory? Thanks in advance

_five_by_five_
13th Sep 2006, 11:18
I haven't played Rome-TW for more than a couple of days, since it didn't really please my taste, so I'm not exactly sure how good my comparison can be.
But since this forum is rather inactive, better a halfassed comparison than none :D

So, here we go:
The turnbased part in IG is more abstract, there is no real "landscape" in which to move your armies but a map of Europe (plus North Africa) divided into provinces. The whole feeling is more like "Risk" if you know that boardgame, also because you only can have a limited amount of armies in a single province so border-security works with a Risk-like mechanism as well.

The diplomacy is more interesting than in TW (since a variety of diplomatic features is integrated and the understanding of alliance networks is key to success), the "base-building" on the other hand is "blander", since there is no 3D-city-tour like in TW, just a bar showing all the buildings you have constructed in a province. The only buildings you can see right on the map are military academies and harbours, everything else is hidden in those information bars (but thats not so different from the overall Rome TW map).

The realtime part: well, thats really a matter of taste. If you prefer gunpowder, line-formation and cannons to spearmen and elephants like I do, you will like IG. The 3D-maps aren't top notch graphic - neither are those of Rome TW btw -, but pretty and functional enough. There is no moral for troops, but that's ok with me since that was less of a factor in the Napoleonic age (puzzling but true) and I also prefer to be sure that my troops are gonna do what I am ordering them to ;)
Only problem I have with IG in that department: the AI that ships with the game sucks. My advice: search online for the available battlemods or even better (because more fitting for the individual taste) find out what you can change about it yourself by editing a couple of textfiles (most important: more variety in troop-make-up so you don't run into ridiculous one-kind-of-unit-only-armies and a reduced tendency for the AI to make a suicidal run towards your cannons with everything they have).

Marshall Thomas
14th Sep 2006, 23:00
Thanks very much for your response. In my opinion the best historical games are ones which have a good balance between strategic and tactical levels. If I had to choose one, I prefer the strategic aspect. Everything I hear about Imperial Glory makes me believe that it may be the perfect game for me. I always been really fascinated by the Napoleonic Era. Also - from what I've read, it seems like Imperial Glory's strategy aspect can be quite involved. I think of the tactical battles as a bonus.

Why is this forum so inactive? Are there other Imperial Glory forums that are more active? Thanks in advance

officerpuppy
15th Sep 2006, 04:21
Thanks very much for your response. In my opinion the best historical games are ones which have a good balance between strategic and tactical levels. If I had to choose one, I prefer the strategic aspect. Everything I hear about Imperial Glory makes me believe that it may be the perfect game for me. I always been really fascinated by the Napoleonic Era. Also - from what I've read, it seems like Imperial Glory's strategy aspect can be quite involved. I think of the tactical battles as a bonus.

Why is this forum so inactive? Are there other Imperial Glory forums that are more active? Thanks in advance

Well its been over a year since the game came out and with the exception of a patch and an SDK, nothing else has been announced or released. The only thing that keeps this game going is the tons of mods out there and the games subject matter.

WallysWorld
15th Sep 2006, 20:48
Well here I am, a long time lurker and a first time poster.

I've got both RTW and IG a lot and must say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. I like RTW's tactical battles better with morale being included, but I still like IG's battles with the battlelines of infantry firing, cannons going off and the overall feeling of a Napoleonic battle. I do wish that morale would have been included, but it's not a showstopper. Like the other poster wrote, in IG you know the troops will do what you ordered them to do. I find battles in IG are over faster than in RTW.

The naval game is pretty fun and easy to control. I do find that they get a little repetitive after a while, but I still play them out instead of letting the AI do it for me.

The campaign game itself is really nice with its Risk-type map. I find the diplomancy better in IG than in RTW and the technology options easier to handle than RTW. The way the use of quests in the campaign game is handled is quite ingenious. Over all, I really enjoy the campaign game.

And with mods out there that change unit stats or make the graphics look much better make IG even more fun to play.

So that's my opinion. RTW has better tactical battles, but IG has the better campaign.

By the way officerpuppy, I want to thank you for all your mods from the igfansite website. The mods have made my IG a lot better. Kudos to you!:)

mongoose8
17th Sep 2006, 01:58
i like RTW because u can follow family members and the traits, and the diversity in troops, but i like IG for the era