Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread: Overall, a half decent game but no longevity

Overall, a half decent game but no longevity

  1. #1

    Overall, a half decent game but no longevity

    Been playing all day and whilst I think its good fun, its no where near as deep as RTW and I wont be playing it for more than a week or so.

    Main issues

    1. Shallowness.
    The strategy map side just feels like a dumbed down RTW. Provinces are jsut checkerboard squares as opposed to the detailed ones in RTW where it matters where you place units.

    What you can do in provinces also really feels too little.

    2. AI
    Pretty much sucks most of the time.
    I had 8 units and attacked AI who had 2. Rather than just try to defend a fortified position he decided to come out and charge, and got slaughtered.

    Ive been 'invaded' by armies a quarter of the size I used to defend.

    Enemy army builds are often stupid. 5 cannon units, 1 infantry. Say hello to my cavalry boys......

    3. Naval battles.

    What the f*** is it with the square ? Every battle I have I lose ships who wander outside of the "zone". jeez its the ocean its HUGE.

    4. Interface.
    Moving units around is fiddly and irritating. Often you have to let go of a unit over the province next to the one you want to get it to land in the right one.


    Like I say a half decent game, but cant see myself sticking with it too long.

    70%

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8
    ya ill agree with ya there RTW has much more depth

  3. #3
    It depends on your prespective, I guess. The RTW was a complete turn-off for me. Pointless except as an excuse to string tactical battles together. I find the IG campaign much more challenging and interesting.

  4. #4
    What brought RTW alive for me was the mods like RTR so I wouldn't write IG off just yet, unless no mods appear that is.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Queeg
    It depends on your prespective, I guess. The RTW was a complete turn-off for me. Pointless except as an excuse to string tactical battles together. I find the IG campaign much more challenging and interesting.
    See I actually feel that way about IG.

    Ig's strategy map is too basic in the way it works and looks.

  6. #6
    Originally Posted by jam_man
    See I actually feel that way about IG.

    Ig's strategy map is too basic in the way it works and looks.
    Pray, what is it you would add to the strategy map? A few Mc-Donald’s drive ins and a theme park maybe.

  7. #7
    More detail.

    More battlefields. As far as I know theres more in England than London.....

    The ability to position your troops anywhere in the province, eg in mountain passes etc.

    Oh, and McDonalds Drive Thrus.

  8. #8
    How can you say RTW's Strategy Map has more depth than IG? In RTW, half the diplomacy features don't work, and the enemy AI can't even figure out how to use the map properly. Not to mention an actual trade infrastructure is non-existant. People who say RTW's campaign map has more depth are either retarded or haven't played IG for more than 5 minutes.

    Now, if you were to say RTW had more in depth battles.. that I could agree with.

  9. #9
    the IG singleplayer is much more better than the TW ones (Shogun, Mongol, Medieval, Viking and Rome), the battles are instead worse.

    No morale, no Lobby, no Ladder, just 2v2, fights are too fast, no logs, no replay, these are the main reasons imho.

  10. #10
    It is true, the battles aren't as in-depth as RTW's. But they are much harder, and they are fun. I definately feel as though it was a $40 well spent.

  11. #11
    Well beleive me, Rome has the worse mp than all the others TW. You should try Shogun or Medieval or Viking, and you will probably see how IG is worse (in real time battle) then these 3 games. It is worse just for few points. The first one is surely the morale.

    The 52€ (is how much I payed it ) was well spent surely for the single player that it is great and very well done, but not for the MP part imho.

  12. #12
    I play Medieval: Total War quite often (I think it's better than RTW). I find this game to be much more fun. In MTW you're garunteed a win when your empire gets to a certain size, and the diplomacy never goes very deep (Although religion is a nice touch).

  13. #13
    Yes yes I am agreed with you, the IG single player (campaign) is much more better than any other TW games. I was talking about the MP (I mean the battles then).

  14. #14
    I don't find RTW MP that bad, I play a mod for RTW called Chivalry and it's good enough for me. I do think IG should have it's own lobby without having to go into GS.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by jam_man
    More detail.

    More battlefields. As far as I know theres more in England than London.....

    The ability to position your troops anywhere in the province, eg in mountain passes etc.

    Oh, and McDonalds Drive Thrus.
    I very much liked the idea of using the terrain on the RTW strategic map and had it worked like advertised, it would have been a nice advance in the series. But the truth is that the AI virtually never took advantage of it. I don't recall the AI ever building a fort in a pass or river crossing in my games. I may have been ambushed a time or two but I don't recall it. And since the developer has now pulled the plug on supporting RTW, it appears that this will a remain just another nice idea never fully realized.

  16. #16
    thats the AI's fault then. the player can use the terrain to his/her advantage no problem.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by emoxcore
    thats the AI's fault then. the player can use the terrain to his/her advantage no problem.
    Which leads to a ridiculously easy and unbalanced game. That's why so many people dislike RTW. It's too easy, and too many things (the AI, namely) are broken.

  18. #18
    I still like RTW better because of the mp. RTW has faults, but longevity lies in mp, no question. AI is AI, and no matter how well implemented,it will get old.

    Someone posted a very good blog/review of IG that I agree with on the "other" forum. I wish they had copied MORE from the TW series. Instead it's more like Civilization. It is a mediocre game, I am having some fun with it, but it will be very short lived. If they had done a better job with the tactical battles, this game would have a longer stay on my PC.

  19. #19
    as i cant get IG to work on my computer, i think im going totake it back and get rome total war iinstead (hoping it will work) is it really a much better game?

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by screamingpalm
    I still like RTW better because of the mp. RTW has faults, but longevity lies in mp, no question. AI is AI, and no matter how well implemented,it will get old.

    Someone posted a very good blog/review of IG that I agree with on the "other" forum. I wish they had copied MORE from the TW series. Instead it's more like Civilization. It is a mediocre game, I am having some fun with it, but it will be very short lived. If they had done a better job with the tactical battles, this game would have a longer stay on my PC.
    Some of us buy these games for the strategy portion. Not everyone is an MP junkie--I for one don't have a good enough connection for that, and I just can't stand seeing too much bad spelling (i.e. you = U, are = R, anyway = neway, ect.)

  21. #21
    Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Some of us buy these games for the strategy portion. Not everyone is an MP junkie--I for one don't have a good enough connection for that, and I just can't stand seeing too much bad spelling (i.e. you = U, are = R, anyway = neway, ect.)
    No joke. I have neither the time nor the patience for MP.

  22. #22
    Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    Some of us buy these games for the strategy portion. Not everyone is an MP junkie--I for one don't have a good enough connection for that, and I just can't stand seeing too much bad spelling (i.e. you = U, are = R, anyway = neway, ect.)

    Dont get me wrong, Im not into the whole clannie thing, or leetspeak or whatever it is. I had high hopes for the tactical part of the game because I like to get online and play with a friend of mine, and would be nice to find an RTS to fight out the battles of our campaign when we cant meet up for miniatures. We live a few hours away and getting a campaign game going takes forever, so it would have been perfect but...

    You have to admit though, the sp part of any game can only last but so long since you are playing against the computer. It cant be challenging for very long (if at all). Thats why the longevity wont be there for IG, its an ok game, but won't last IMO.

  23. #23
    I agree Screamingpalm, unless of course they decided to adress the MP issues and the ingame issues as well. I thought RTW was good 'eye candy' when it first came out but with the RTR mod it has transformed it IMO. Perhaps the same might happen with IG but like you same it won't stay fresh very long like it is, multiplayer extends a games life, if any games company could crack getting a campaign online for MP then they would be onto a winner.

  24. #24
    Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    How can you say RTW's Strategy Map has more depth than IG? In RTW, half the diplomacy features don't work, and the enemy AI can't even figure out how to use the map properly. Not to mention an actual trade infrastructure is non-existant. People who say RTW's campaign map has more depth are either retarded or haven't played IG for more than 5 minutes.

    Now, if you were to say RTW had more in depth battles.. that I could agree with.
    I agree diplomacy is far better handled in IG, but thats not the map.

    Im not saying RTW is perfect, it has plenty of flaws but I think its still far more involved than IG, and the magazine reviews Ive read say the same thing.

    The map in RTW has plenty of landscape features you can use. Admittedly the AI doesnt use them very often so its flawed, yet even flawed its better than having a 1 battlefield province like IG and previous TW games.

    Whilst the AI doesnt make use of Forts etc it still has the ability of pass through provinces without fighting. In games where moving into a province = battle you can basically use a province as a wall. If the AI cant win the province outright hecant get past it.

    Even if the only difference was that each province has more than one battlefield it makes it far better.

    Invading a province and fighting over the same bloody building time and time again is dull dull dull.

    After the strategy map of RTW Im finding it hard to get any reall strategic enoyment from IGs map.

  25. #25
    Originally Posted by Sir Crow
    I thought RTW was good 'eye candy' when it first came out but with the RTR mod it has transformed it IMO. .
    Ive always really enjoyed RTW vanilla style.

    Last night I did actually install the RTR mod and it does look even better now.

    Certainly revitalised the game for me and meant I played that instead of IG already!

    Im sure IG will also get the mod treatment at some point.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last