Page 1 of 4 1234 Last

Thread: My opinion after a few days of playing.

My opinion after a few days of playing.

  1. #1

    My opinion after a few days of playing.

    I'm sure most of you won't care what I think. But I'm writing this mainly for anyone who hasn't gotten the game yet.

    This game has been fairly enjoyable so far, but if you like Rome: Total War, be careful. This is one of those cases where I think the developers went out of their way to be different from Total War, and in doing so omitted a lot of really good features.

    First off, the campaign is more in depth from the main map. While not as pretty as the world map in RTW, and not as big, and you can't have your troops move across multiple turns, and there are nowhere near as many factions or unique units, it has more diplomacy. Which I guess is cool... Whenever I buy a game with a dude holding a sword and a flintlock on the cover, the first thing that comes to my mind is "OH BOY, DIPLOMACY! I'm going to be shaking hands and taking names!" (yes that was sarcasm)

    Also, it takes a while to ramp up to fighting strength. You can fight right away if you want, but you'll get reamed. This isn't necessarily a negative though.

    When you do actually get to fight, you'll probably be disappointed. There are numerous flaws (many of which can be discovered in this forum) A few of which include the inability to pause and issue orders, no real morale, and (the worst in my cavalry-loving opinion) there's no way to withdraw from melee. That's right, kiss your hussars goodbye. When you send them in, they won't come back.

    The naval battles are the only thing that this game holds above RTW, though i'm sure that if the Total War guys gave it a whack in their next game *crosses fingers* they could do a good job too.

    I guess that's it. Again, I just came off of RTW a couple months ago, so it's the standard to which I'm going to hold all large scale strategy games. Unfortunately, despite having wicked coolness potential, this one doesn't hold up. Maybe a patch will fix things.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18
    i feel the same way, this game have a lot of potential but it felt short on many areas...

    The battlemap is not fun to play, while the campaing sometimes is...

    is too bad the battlemap has this flaws coz ruined the game for me... is like playing a Manager game but the "in game" is not fun. Why bother.


    I don`t htink they will be able to make the game good enough with a patch, hopefully they get a chance to make a IG2 and then, this game could rock.

    So far... going back to RTW or wait the expansion....

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by LrdVprScrpn
    I'm sure most of you won't care what I think. But I'm writing this mainly for anyone who hasn't gotten the game yet.

    This game has been fairly enjoyable so far, but if you like Rome: Total War, be careful. This is one of those cases where I think the developers went out of their way to be different from Total War, and in doing so omitted a lot of really good features.

    First off, the campaign is more in depth from the main map. While not as pretty as the world map in RTW, and not as big, and you can't have your troops move across multiple turns, and there are nowhere near as many factions or unique units, it has more diplomacy. Which I guess is cool... Whenever I buy a game with a dude holding a sword and a flintlock on the cover, the first thing that comes to my mind is "OH BOY, DIPLOMACY! I'm going to be shaking hands and taking names!" (yes that was sarcasm)

    Also, it takes a while to ramp up to fighting strength. You can fight right away if you want, but you'll get reamed. This isn't necessarily a negative though.

    When you do actually get to fight, you'll probably be disappointed. There are numerous flaws (many of which can be discovered in this forum) A few of which include the inability to pause and issue orders, no real morale, and (the worst in my cavalry-loving opinion) there's no way to withdraw from melee. That's right, kiss your hussars goodbye. When you send them in, they won't come back.

    The naval battles are the only thing that this game holds above RTW, though i'm sure that if the Total War guys gave it a whack in their next game *crosses fingers* they could do a good job too.

    I guess that's it. Again, I just came off of RTW a couple months ago, so it's the standard to which I'm going to hold all large scale strategy games. Unfortunately, despite having wicked coolness potential, this one doesn't hold up. Maybe a patch will fix things.

    Sounds like you enjoy big flashy sword-fights instead of a game that challenges your abilities. Enjoy RTW.

  4. #4
    How can a game challenge my abilities when it doesn't give me the option to use them?
    I don't want flashy, I just want satisfying, and I would like the option to use my troops as I see fit.
    It's okay to admit that there are flaws in a game you have, I just did it! This is the only way to get developers to change things. I think it's stupid to defend things that are obviously wrong and insult people who point them out.

  5. #5
    dont worry about mr.cube over there. hes been a valiant defender of Imperial Glory since...forever? =P

    on a side note. lets stop comparing Rome to Imperial Glory please. both are different games with different gamestyles.

    if you insist however then i say compare Imperial Glory to Europa Universalis.

    (oh and i agree with your post LrdVprScrpn)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18
    Originally Posted by emoxcore
    dont worry about mr.cube over there. hes been a valiant defender of Imperial Glory since...forever? =P

    on a side note. lets stop comparing Rome to Imperial Glory please. both are different games with different gamestyles.

    if you insist however then i say compare Imperial Glory to Europa Universalis.

    (oh and i agree with your post LrdVprScrpn)
    yeah, comparisons are wrong, but i can`t help it... both could be great games... what i don`t like about IG, most of all, they missed some important details on the battle... it just don`t feel satisfase enough when you win a battle, specially with that Pop up telling you..hey!...the Enemey retreat!! Congratulations!!

    It would really cool, to see unit after unit retreting, and maybe... comeback... this way it force you to keep lines, etc... oh well... let`s hope the patch add this thing, but i`m preatty sure they won`t.

  7. #7
    The long and short, "is it worth the money", the answer must be yes. The few small flaws can soon be adjusted in IG first patch, because that's all they are small, the game comes out of the box, well polished.
    The only comparison I personally draw between RTW and IG is which of these games gives me the more pleasure bound with addictiveness, and that's where I think IG come's out the clear winner.

  8. #8

    My thoughts

    I must disagree about it being wrong to compare one product with another. Games such as Rome: Total War have set a certain standard in the community which game companies should be trying to match or even surpass. The fact that people feel that this product does not compare to RTW should be of grave concern to the companies involved in this release. I personally feel that this game would have been a hit four years ago but fails to meet the higher standards set by products like RTW. I found the gameplay slow and often frustrating. Here are my thoughts:

    The campaign side is too slow and people find themselves hitting next turn thirty times before they can begin fighting. This was a big problem for me as I dont enjoy clicking a mouse button for fourty minutes when I can be playing a game like RTW and getting into some hot action in a few turns.

    The 3d battle at sea is just plain rubbish. I found the only challenge was trying to keep my ships from leaving the battle. The combat it's self was boring and really lacked imagination.

    Land battles made me feel like I was playing a game from the 90's. The graphics were nothing special and the behaviour of your units is a joke. One example is the way they turn and break the line.

    To sum it all up I will just say that I gave this game a 3/10. It was a nice try and had some great concepts(garrison buildings? I love that part) but the bad outweighs the good in this game. I think I will just await the realease of Napoleonic Total War mod for RTW. I hope that the devolopers read your thoughts and improve this product. I will tell you not to hold your breath. No company comits to serious changes after the product has been released and they have made a profit. This project will be moved to the back shelf now and they will all ready be working on another product for you to purchase.

    Have a good day people.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    11
    I've played many conquer-the-world games like Rome Total War, Civ, etc. Pretty much every one that ever came out.

    I'd give this game a 3 out of 10. It's been amusing for a few days but I won't play it again.

    The best part was the way the alliances and diplomacy is set up. Very well done, and you have to stay on your toes.

    But once you figure out how to get around that, and build up a little, the game is very easy - even the hardest setting.

    The tactical AI is sadly lacking, and easily beaten in battles.

    The navy battles or poorly designed and implemented. It's quite an annoying interface they've got for the ships. Naval battles quickly become something you never fight again.

    One good feature is that you are limited to 3 armies in a province, which makes you plan, and get better commanders to hold more units.

    This game does not have the subtlely and replay value of Total War, which I played for months, not days. And of course it will be compared to the Total War series! Come on! It's the same kind of game: conquer-the-world by building up your provinces and also learn to manage troops and fight well in the battlefield.

    I hope they keep working on these games and make a better one. The more of these types of games are made, the more competition so we'll get better games for us to play!

    So, this was a nice effort, but not destined to be a classic.

    EDIT: I'm no tactical genius, BTW. I play a lot, sure, but I'm no expert. So if I can beat it this easily, then the R:TW hardcore types will walk all over it.

  10. #10

    Red Face (Embarrassed) not again.....

    hate to waste my 1st post on this but...

    why, (even IF TW was the inspiration) do folks have to compare them???

    i bought IG cuz i wanted the expanded role of diplomacy without having to get all EUII!!

    let IG stand on it's merits or lack of. how many good (fun) napoleonic pc games are there?? Fields of Glory just wasn't that much fun...

    i've got a 3 day weekend and plan to explore IG for all it's worth. but, i'm not expecting TW! i'm expecting IG!!

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by somewhere above
    hate to waste my 1st post on this but...

    why, (even IF TW was the inspiration) do folks have to compare them???

    i bought IG cuz i wanted the expanded role of diplomacy without having to get all EUII!!

    let IG stand on it's merits or lack of. how many good (fun) napoleonic pc games are there?? Fields of Glory just wasn't that much fun...

    i've got a 3 day weekend and plan to explore IG for all it's worth. but, i'm not expecting TW! i'm expecting IG!!
    don't u really understand or u just pretend to be seen as showing 'don't understand' of why ppl comparing this game to TW??? try to be more honest...I am very sorry i make this sort of insult mention. But we all have heard that this game is turn-base&real time battle game, and that type is 99.9999% similar to TW series...and...that doesn't mean this game is benchmarked to TW series, so DOES NOT become its epigone or inferiority...

    People can't help thinking of TW game series or just RTW whatever turn-based&real time battle game they come in contact with. Please don't 100%deny that tendancy at all where some discussion starts

  12. #12
    Imperial Glory is basically run the same way as Total war but i doubt Imperial Glory will get as good as Total war, hopefully Total War Games brings in sea battles, or the Creators for Imperial Glory will add more features to there game.

  13. #13
    Imperial Glory already does, but not very well from what I've heard. (or atleast tons of room for improvement)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    18
    For some reason i keep coming back, i still got the game on the HD and i still feel is not at the same level as RTW is..

    But, i feel the game is good enough to make me want to "learn" to play it.

    While i don´t like this game, i guess i want to be sure it´s the game who don´t have X thing instead of me not knowing how to use it, so this is the main reason why i keep comming back.

    I guess we have to learn some "new" strategy compared to RTW since the battles are totally different.

    Right now i could tell i´m getting th hang of the game and is a good game.. if you don´t compare with RTW it is a nice game, but again, it lacks of all the details that make RTW amazing.

    What bother me the most is that the game had so much potential, but it missed the target.

    Let´s hope they get a Huge Patch and make us happy

    I give a 7.8 score... close to be a great game (8.0) but not there....

  15. #15
    don't u really understand or u just pretend to be seen as showing 'don't understand' of why ppl comparing this game to TW??? try to be more honest...I am very sorry i make this sort of insult mention. But we all have heard that this game is turn-base&real time battle game, and that type is 99.9999% similar to TW series...and...that doesn't mean this game is benchmarked to TW series, so DOES NOT become its epigone or inferiority...

    People can't help thinking of TW game series or just RTW whatever turn-based&real time battle game they come in contact with. Please don't 100%deny that tendancy at all where some discussion starts
    games by the same company invite comparison. RTW has lots of flaws, but it's still a great game. i don't even compare medieval or shogun, what's the point? they're each different. if i want TW, tho, i play TW.

    comps work better when explaining features than just peeing and moaning. comparing it to other Napoleonic games would make more sense. then you could get what most people consider the best "napoleonic" game. there are no Polish lancers in RTW, so why bother...

    that's the logic that i use

  16. #16
    The fact is, IG and RTW are very different games. However you get the idea that RTW has "alot more options" is beyond me. Half the features in RTW don't even work.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    161
    Too many Rome TW fanatics in here...
    Should i bother answering ooo well...


    I also like ROME TW but it is not NEAR in the Strategy abilities of IG



    ROME TW failures

    1) ROME TW diplomacy SUCKS if you can call it diplomacy

    The only really usefull option is Bribe the others are so difficult to work (and if they work)
    i do not understand why Creative Assembly bothered to add diplomacy to Rome TW anyway

    IG has so many diplomatic options and ALL OF THEM TRULY WORKS

    2) Losing Generals is annoying, Just kill the Enemy General and Game Over, The Enemy Units retreat like cowards, Generals ruins the strategy of a game

    Anyway in Napoleon Era Generals were not battling in the front lines
    So IG is historical accurate

    3) IG Battle Graphics are better with more beautifull details in surounding from compared to Rome TW poor ugly textures

    4) There is no True Nations influence in Rome TW
    while in IG every action good or wrong has a consequense in how the other countries see you
    Rome TW is Lifeless in that area

    5) IG has true Naval battles, at least it is better from having almost nothing like it is with Rome TW, and if you do not want to play them you can press NO for an Automatic result just like it is with Rome TW

    6) IG gives the ability to player to build trades and to who he will trade etc
    and gives so many details for the player to trade and how

    While in ROME TW Trade is only for the FOOLS EYES , It is simple just for giving you money without giving you real choices how to do it


    Should i say more about how Great ROME TW is and how poor is IG



    In Battles Rome TW is surely more Realistic because of the Troops getting panicked when they lose their General

    But in the Nations Strategy area and how to build your nation and everything that has to do with the MAP
    IMPERIAL GLORY RULEZZZ AT THAT
    Rome TW is not even "touching" it at that area because it lacks options


    Note: Except maybe that Rome TW has a 3d MAP while IG looks more like the Medieval TW MAP

  18. #18
    Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
    The fact is, IG and RTW are very different games. However you get the idea that RTW has "alot more options" is beyond me. Half the features in RTW don't even work.
    Hyperbole much? Which half would that be?

    I'm glad you like IG and all, but for a lot of us who've played Rome for the past year or so, Imperial Glory just falls so short of the mark set that it's not even funny. I played the game for about four hours last night after picking it up, and I probably won't ever start it up again. And I'm a big fan of the Napoleonic era.

    It's personal opinion, that's all.

    What's not personal opinion is that Rome leads the pack in these sorts of games, both critically and in sales. Rome is the game to beat, and if you think Imperial Glory is going to do it, either with the critics or with sales, well...you're nuts. Again, I'm not saying you're not entitled to think the game's great, I'm just trying to explain why the comparison is so obvious. They're the exact same style of game.

  19. #19

    Lightbulb

    I agree with what many of you have said, but also disagree with some of it too. Hmmm..

    Interesting to note how many people mention that Commanders in Napoleonic Wars didn't take part in front line battles. READ YOUR HISTORY. Many Generals were either maimed ort lost their life is such engagements. Many of their troops took inspiration from their Commander's bravery (or lack thereof) and either performed more gloriously in battle or suffered with morale as a result of it. I agree that because a General or other officer takes part in a battle or is killed, that shouldn't automatically spell the end of your troops will to fight because there were many factors that contributed to victory or defeat. However, leaving out officers (which may seem a small part to some of you) actually takes out the very human element of battle.

    Also, many people keep saying this is not RTW and I agree. But just because something is not one thing doesn't mean it can't take meaningful lessons from something else and improve on it. After all, there is "nothing new under the Sun." Almost everything we have is an improvement on something else.

    That said, I really do enjoy IG I just wish that some of these suggestions show up in future patches, expansions.

    PS FOr those that don't want pause and command... if it's added, don't use it. If you don't want to risk your general getting killed or injured in combat, park his behind so far behind the lines that the only thing he'll risk is boredom. Which is what I'm beginning to do with officers that serve no other purpose than to park troops into. Otherwise, they mean absolutely nothing. Which is not historically accurate.


  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Sotos
    5) IG has true Naval battles, at least it is better from having almost nothing like it is with Rome TW, and if you do not want to play them you can press NO for an Automatic result just like it is with Rome TW[/COLOR]
    Well, sure, the naval battles are true if you consider sailing directly into the wind a common capability of square-rigged 19th century men-of-war.

    I don't.

    The naval aspect is what sold me on this game, and I wish I had my money back. They're absolute rubbish.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    161
    Commisar can you do us a favour

    Instead of you and your friends from Total War forums repeating the same and the same......................
    just take yourself and your Rome TW fanatic friends from here and go back to Total War Forums

    You and your friends Excuse of IG beeing too Short and not so good compared to ROME TW makes me and i am surely a lot of others in here getting BORED

    If you have nothing practical to say except the standard excuse
    "ROME TW has a panic System in battles and IG NOT so IG sucks"

    lets say you better go somewhere else

    You and your friends in here trying to convince all other members about ROME TW beeing "THE GREATEST" and "IG NOT ENOUGH" are pathetic
    Most of your "proof" about IG is "soooo Short" do not even stand

    As i see it it's the other way
    ROME TW has more realistic battles but IG is more than just that in all other areas!


    Better play it more than 4 hours before talking next time

  22. #22
    I wanted to mention one other thing too... that while there are some things in my life that I absolutely love.... it would be foolish to think that nothing can be improved on. Many of the comments people are making about patch improvements, features or expansion pack ideas are what would make the game more fun, exciting and realistic for them. Many don't seem like bad ideas at all.. for example...

    1.) battle pause/command... If you don't want to use it and you want a click fest, then by all means don't use the feature that MANY people are asking for. Let those who want to use it have the option.

    2.) Commanders on the field.. Again dont't say it's historically accurate to leave them our of battle b/c you're not reading your history. (And that need to be tweaks to keep troops automatically running away because a commander is killed). But if you don't want to risk your General.. protect him with quality troops and don't put him near the field of battle (the maps are big enough to plant your HQ in a land far, far away.

    There have been so many ideas that I obviously can't go into all of them. My only point is, don't think that IG can't be tweaked so no idea should be bashed or belittled simply because you don't like it or don't agree.


  23. #23
    RTW, or even TW, fans will always be TWcentric because there has never been any other comparable game for the last five years. People seem to forget that Pyro never developed IG as a direct competitor to the TW series. Pyro were just interested in providing a real-time Napoleonic period strategy/war game, which they have done and I think it works OK. If people really want to play the comparison game it is easy - diplomacy in RTW is crap and it is great in IG - end of story. Pretty much everything else in RTW is better than IG, but so what ? RTW is not fun for me any more, its a bloody clickfest with some pretty huge battles in between and thats about it - roll on the xpansion and some new units to play with! Personally I have enjoyed all of the TW series right from the start, but right now I like IG better because it has introduced me to a new period of history and warfare that I knew very little about before and because it has given me something other than battles to do in an ancient warfare RTS context.

  24. #24
    Originally Posted by Commissar
    Hyperbole much? Which half would that be?

    I'm glad you like IG and all, but for a lot of us who've played Rome for the past year or so, Imperial Glory just falls so short of the mark set that it's not even funny. I played the game for about four hours last night after picking it up, and I probably won't ever start it up again. And I'm a big fan of the Napoleonic era.

    It's personal opinion, that's all.

    What's not personal opinion is that Rome leads the pack in these sorts of games, both critically and in sales. Rome is the game to beat, and if you think Imperial Glory is going to do it, either with the critics or with sales, well...you're nuts. Again, I'm not saying you're not entitled to think the game's great, I'm just trying to explain why the comparison is so obvious. They're the exact same style of game.

    I've been playing RTW since it came out. I'm currentl awaiting RTR 6.0 and EB with feverish anticipation. RTW is an amazing game, but to say it is more complete than IG is pure fallacy. Whether it's a better game is a matter of taste, but there is no debate on the completeness of RTW compared to the completeness of IG.

    Things that don't work so well in IG
    +Enemies don't like to set up camp and be on the defensive
    +Morale (debatable.. Morale is there, but not as in-depth as RTW. One could say this is an under-played feature, and not non-existant. As it does work as intended.)
    +Ship Battles are.. ludicrously difficult to manage, but this is also debatable as they are clearly finished.

    Things that don't work so well in RTW
    +Diplomacy--Most of the diplomatic options are uselss. Enemies don't respect alliances, allies won't to war to help you out. Asking for someone to attack another faction rarely works. Asking for Map Information only gives you half-accurate information. Right of Passage agreements are utterly useless, as nobody cares when you are on their territory (Except the senate, if you're playing the romans; but you end up killing them off eventually anyway.)
    +Naval Battles--There are no actual naval battles. This is arguable though, as it works as intended.. it's just lacking. Admittedly it would be hard to play out a classical naval battle in real-time. This brings me to my next point:
    +Auto-Calculation--Auto-Calc always causes you a ridiculous defeat that you could have won if you'd done it yourself, or causes you a ridiculous victory that you could not have won if you'd done it yourself. I put 5 units of peasants in a city, and the egyptions attacked it.. I resisted all of their armies for at least 7 sieges. Eventually I had 5 peasants with 3 Gold Chevrons.
    +AI in the campaign map--Every time you save the game, quit, and load it back up, the enemy has completely forgotten all thier diplomatic efforts. It's been reported that it takes as many as seven turns for the AI to start functioning properly again. Furthermore, the enemy seems to have no judgement about it's troop-building habits, always creating an army that drains it's economy like an irishman at a pub, and is constructed of fundamentally useless units.
    +AI in the Battles--The enemy generals have a habit of doing suicide charges into your groups of spearmen, for one. The enemy also never seems to come at you in any intelligent formation, instead sending small waves of their troops. Although, in the AI's defense, it does try and flank you with missle cavalry.. but that's about it.

    Like I said.. both good games. To anyone looking into strategy games, I'd recommend them both, as they give distinctly good and different experiences. I, for one, prefer IG to RTW. But I still play both. It's not as if you have to choose one or the other. But as to the completeness of the games.. there's no comparison.

  25. #25
    I think IG is a great game. In my experience, the game plays great right out of the box. The strategic side of the game is very absorbing and the battles work just fine the way they are. True, as with any game, there is always room for improvement but if Pyro never released a patch, I wouldn't be dissapointed. The more I play IG, the more I realize what a wonderful game the designers have achieved. The game stands very well on its own two legs.

    Some complain about the artillery range being too short or the ships not sailing the way a real ship of the line would and other aspects of the game not being true to life. What Pyro has created is a strategy GAME based in the Napoleonic era, not a historical simulation. These nonprototypical aspects of the game work fine within the confines of the game world. They force me to use a little bit different strategy than I might use in another game - that's a good thing in my opinion.

    As an avid PC gamer I crave a good strategy game and the TW series are among the best. I love them all but personally speaking, I don't want a TW clone. I enjoy the different challenges each game has to offer. I think what alot of the people bashing the game were hoping for was, in essence, RTW reskinned with napoleonic units - there's a free downloadable mod for MTW for those folks.

Page 1 of 4 1234 Last