Imperial Glory--Any news or thoughts? [Archive]

lancelot

05-16-2005, 14:11

The game features a complex "Sympathy" system, and if a small allied country (like, say, Morocco) reaches 100% sympathy towards your empire (this would be achieved by pumping money into their economy, safegaurding them with your military, ect.) then you can bring them into your empire without violence.

Now that is a great idea.

For the love of God, why cant someone make a game that has all the great features of all the great strat games we like!!!

Spartiate

05-16-2005, 20:00

One feature i hav heard of is the tendancy the AI has to guard its cannon in the game.Now thats something i long to see in RTW.The AI recognising its strenghts and playing to them.

xemitg

05-16-2005, 21:04

These sort of imitations are good. If CA produces crap, other competitors will enter the market and take their consumer niche. It’s motivation for CA to keep their act together and to listen to their fan base.

Quietus

05-17-2005, 04:34

True, but if you'll kindly read some of the previews, conquering a region is alot more complicated than in MTW. There's an annexation period after you enter another country's territory as an act of war, in which several battles will be fought. Which preview is this? Several battles in one region?

And, aside from that, the simple mechanics of IG's diplomacy are alot more intricate than in the Total War series. The key difference, I guess, is that TW is focussed on war, while IG will allow for diplomatic routes to be taken as well--such as peaceful annexation of smaller countries. The game features a complex "Sympathy" system, and if a small allied country (like, say, Morocco) reaches 100% sympathy towards your empire (this would be achieved by pumping money into their economy, safegaurding them with your military, ect.) then you can bring them into your empire without violence. Interesting. Perhaps, it can modded to, say, 100 provinces.

I don't see this as a competitor to the TW series. I see it as a new stepping-stone for the genre. It does have some advancements such as sea battles.

professorspatula

05-17-2005, 06:30

Well I'm not sure Imperial Glory will be a challenge to TW's throne, but there definitely is a need for someone to move on the genre. Perhaps with some serious competition, the bar will be raised and the next TW game will really be as good as we hoped RTW would be before it was released. A lot of potential was wasted.

Zalmoxis

05-17-2005, 07:49

If there could only be a game with the supposed democracy of IG and the battles of RTW... I think this game actually ships tommorow.

Nelson

05-17-2005, 14:52

The unit combat values in the IG demo are ridiculous. If they can be modified the game might have some interest for me. Otherwise the units are simply too unreal. In a fantasy setting I wouldn’t mind but the Napoleonic trappings make the unit design offensive to anyone who knows the period.

econ21

05-18-2005, 09:51

I suppose that's a matter of taste. I was rather dissapointed with all the innacuracies in RTW, MTW, and heck even STW, but that didnt stop them from being good games. Same thing here.

Well, I agree with Nelson here. Someone posted that hussars have 65 melee strength compared to 15 for household cav and household cav have 45 fire strength compared to 38 for rifles. If that is true, I agree with Nelson it's just offensive and there is nothing nearly as bizarre as that in the Total War games. It would be like making hobilars better at melee than gothic knights and giving companion cavalry a better missile attack than Cretan archers. Just bizarre.

Kraxis

05-18-2005, 13:06

Well, I agree with Nelson here. Someone posted that hussars have 65 melee strength compared to 15 for household cav and household cav have 45 fire strength compared to 38 for rifles. If that is true, I agree with Nelson it's just offensive and there is nothing nearly as bizarre as that in the Total War games. It would be like making hobilars better at melee than gothic knights and giving companion cavalry a better missile attack than Cretan archers. Just bizarre.
Yup bizarre... Well actually not, it is just the classical rock-paper-sissors. Becuase the Households are so expensive they have to be great at something ect ect.

I doubt I will try this game at any point. But I still welcome the game, as hopefully they will learn to make it better so that CA gets some competition.

econ21

05-18-2005, 20:53

I really don't understand why you'd label this as inferior to a CA game.

Well, I haven't played it but I'd only be interested in it if it had some semblance to being a historical wargame. Those stats I cited are so absurd they mean the game is anything but historical. By contrast CA games, while they aim at a wider market, also serve that niche better than most other competitors.

RabidGibbon

05-19-2005, 00:22

I played the demo and didn't enjoy it. The unit sizes were smaller than R:TW, the whole pace of the battles was faster, units were harder to control, and only had a choice of line formation or column formation.

I never noticed any real morale implications either - units just seemed to die in place.

I dont know much about the technical aspects of the graphics but I certainly prefer the look of R:TW

I also read a review on teletext that said the much touted naval battles had a maximum limit of 6 ships, which seems a bit small.

Overall if you want a good napoleonic total war style game I'd recommend downloading the NTW mod for MTW:VI, or waiting for NTW 2 for rome to be released.

econ21

05-19-2005, 09:40

So you'd ignore the drastically superior gameplay because of some stats that were in the demo?

What are the final stats for household cavalry, hussars and rifles? Actually, it doesn't matter - if the company can do such violence to history in a demo, there's no way the final product can be historical.

Boohugh

05-19-2005, 09:58

PC Gamer UK gave the game a distinctly average 72%. The campaign game apparently lacks the depth of TW, and the battles were described as frustrating. The historical accuracy, or lack of, has also been taken to ridiculous proportions, with the British unable to build ships at the start of the game in 1789 and Copenhagen isn't a port.

They did say that a lot of the annoying niggles could be patched however, and the game showed promise if this was done.

Rifleman1848-98

05-19-2005, 10:55

What is your opinion about a Total War III in 1848 ?

http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/oficial_prusiano3.jpg http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/oficial_prusiano6.jpg

http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/garcia_benitez_2_2.jpg http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/fortes29_1.jpg

http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/vitalino_silva74_1.jpg http://www.totalwar.org/patrons/dungeon/images/jesus_santamaria7_1.jpg

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=47884

Kraxis

05-19-2005, 15:27

A game is not superior because it will recieve more patches, that just means it is better supported. That is doog in itself, but it won't make up for obvious lacks in the game.

Frustrating battles and a lack of historical correctness to a great extent is not going to make it a competitor of the TW series, which is what I want.
Now it sounds like our Cube-friend likes this game a quite a lot already, I'm happy for you, I really am, but we all have different tastes. I just prefer such games to be more like the TW games, only better. CA found the formula for me, now I hope others will join in.

SwordsMaster

05-20-2005, 00:19

I still don't get it. The differences in the battles are almost insignificant, and there are undeniable improvements in the campaign map part of the game. Perhaps youj don't like the game, but they are not really different formulas.

Of course they are. Otherwise it would be plagiarism and intellectual property theft which is kinda hard to argue but still a juridical issue (and one pretty harshly judged too).

Anyway. IG gameplay lacks the experience of CA games. It works like a RTS would work, but it isnt REALLY RTS.

I will get the game eventually (and legally, dont worry ~;) ) thats what working in the industry offers ~;), but I wont ache for it. I think it does have some potential, and I think the animations are kinda smoother than RTWs (maybe due to smaller battlefields I dont know) but the killing speed and the general behaviour of the units lacks experience as I said before.

And the unit choices have very little variety, the stats are outrageous (I dont particularly mind if it fits with the behaviour of the unit, but still...), and the choice of factions is even more limited than RTW (which is pretty limited after MTW).

America and Asia are still out of the game, and they did play a very important part in european affairs at this point even more than Africa and the colonial empires in Oceania.

So I think the game will appeal more to those who wanted a Faraonic Egypt in RTW and incendiary pigs as a weapon of mass destruction. Cant blame them. A pig is always a terrifying beast...

econ21

05-20-2005, 00:35

The game lacks perfect historical accuracy, yes, but so does RTW.

It's not a question of perfect historical accuracy. It's a question of any semblance of historical accuracy. British household cavalry did not shoot in Napoleonic battles, let alone shoot as well as the specialist rifle infantry. And they certainly used shock attack as well as hussars. I don't think anyone with a genuine interest in Napoleonic warfare could get much pleasure out of a game that embodied such stats. The developers may respect modders, but they have no respect for their source material. Other recent RTSs, like Dawn of War and Battle for Middle Earth, did much better in this regard.

SwordsMaster

05-20-2005, 00:41

*throws hands in the air*

The game lacks perfect historical accuracy, yes, but so does RTW. What's that you say? RTR? Mods? The Imperial Glory devs have shown more respect for modders so far than the RTW ones have! The only difference is that IG is a far more complex game, and would be more difficult to mod. That's surely not a bad thing, as that complexity leads to a game that actually has challenging AI!

In any case, I'm done arguing. RTW is a good game. MTW is still one of my favorite games of all time. But I think IG is just as good, if not better, than any of the Total War games, and I hate to see a promising franchise suffer because of this unfair and bias comparison to RTW.

It is not about being unfair or biased. The devs themselves compared it to RTW. Obviously, there are not so many games out there that have this kinda "structure".

Im not even talking about historical accuracy. The text files can always be changed at will. Im talking about the units not holding their ranks, the pause function preventing you from giving orders or even selecting units, and the poor choice of factions and units because the devs wanted a pure rock-paper-scissor functionality. This obviously simplifies their life, but that is not what you will be paying money for. Quite the contrary you expect them to have a hard time giving you as much variety and entertainmement as possible and not expecting to get a game for you to finish it by modding.

Or would you pay 60E for a game you still have to mod to enjoy?

I think its great they offer good modding support but Pyro has to "grow up" and operate like a serious competitive company as opposed to the kinda "college website project" attitude they are keeping with IG. IMO Commandos was much more professional and much better delivered. And it has nothing to do with RTW.

ICantSpellDawg

05-20-2005, 01:11

watch the trailer on the homepage

at first i thought the graphics wouldnt touch TW's, but now im not so sure

Australianus

05-20-2005, 09:33

I will have a look at IG. THe disappointment of RTW is still raw with me.

An area that would be of interest is India from the Moghuls to the Portugese, French and English. Terrain, units, diplomacy, wealth - you name it.

Louie431

06-01-2005, 19:18

Well I've got to tell you that I had high hopes for this game. Im a Naps wargammer and in retrospect I was bound to see the flaws in this game.

I really thought it to be terrible. Yes I see what the designers are trying to do and yes I do understand that it's not produced to be accurate but I really expected more.

Judging from the modding community that produced the likes of "Rome Total Realism" to name just one I would say that IG is a modders treasure trove.

There is just so much that can be improved. From uniforms to the dissapointing battles where three cannons can cut a unit down with a few rounds. One thing I really would like to see is the choice of bigger unit a-la-RTW.

I just hate it. Waste of thirty quid.

Mongoose

06-02-2005, 01:32

I was hoping that IG would be a better patched napoleonic version of RTW but then i read that the battles don't have morale... :disappointed:

maybe the lack of simple parts of gameplay make the game harder...

Papewaio

06-02-2005, 01:49

and incendiary pigs as a weapon of mass destruction. Cant blame them. A pig is always a terrifying beast...

OT in fairness to pigs...

A train can bulldoze through a herd of cows and keep going. A single wild boar however has been know to go through the front of a train and stop it...

Mongoose

06-02-2005, 13:52

What i meant by "morale" was that have lost many man will start running away with out orders.

Krusader

06-04-2005, 21:02

This review from Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/imperialglory/review.html?tag=boxcar_pc_review_headline) sums up my thoughts almost exactly.

Mongoose

06-04-2005, 23:57

Well, as much as i disagree with you on IG, i do agree that gamespy/gamespot are not without a large bias...

doc_bean

06-05-2005, 13:29

I think they usually give fair reviews, but like Gelatinous Cube says, the score doesn't fit the review very well.

Krusader

06-05-2005, 17:35

The score doesn't reflect what he wrote. He says the game is equal to Shogun when it came out, yet Shogun has an 8.-somthing score. Gamespot has been kissing the ass of CA for the last 5 years, it's predictable that they'd underrate this game. IGN gave it an 8.5.

Yes, maybe true. Although IGN (who is partnered with Gamespy) is more famous for their bias. The score might not fit the review, but most of the things the reviewer points out I agree on. Like the morale system which I find a major "historical/historically significant/historically relative" (take your pick) flaw. I haven't read so much about the Napoleonic War, but I've read enough to know that entire armies were not wiped out in battles.

Bottom line, is that the VERY IMPORTANT first-impression wasn't right. When I first started the game I didn't like it at all, but I then played some hours more. Liked parts of it, but still not enough to make me want to play it more.

And as a late comment about the demo. Demos are there for impressions, a DEMOnstration of what the full version will have. The stupidest argument I've ever come across in the gaming world is "Don't judge a game by the demo".
Demos are there to give a sample of what the game has to offer, so people wont get upset when they shell out £, € or $ and find out they bought a game they don't like.

Yun Dog

06-08-2005, 02:24

*throws hands in the air*

The game lacks perfect historical accuracy, yes, but so does RTW. What's that you say? RTR? Mods? The Imperial Glory devs have shown more respect for modders so far than the RTW ones have! The only difference is that IG is a far more complex game, and would be more difficult to mod. That's surely not a bad thing, as that complexity leads to a game that actually has challenging AI!

In any case, I'm done arguing. RTW is a good game. MTW is still one of my favorite games of all time. But I think IG is just as good, if not better, than any of the Total War games, and I hate to see a promising franchise suffer because of this unfair and bias comparison to RTW.

I am totally with you cube - I just finished my first campaign as the french - I am loving this game! ~:cheers:

The diplomacy and strategic AI is far far FAR superior to RTW or MTW for that matter. Alliances, popularity, to annex or to liberate, the quests. I know these are just first impressions but Im more than happy with my purchase, and will no doubt be playing the hell out of it, Thank god it arrived I was considering going back to RTW. The battles I found them to be fine, the muskets the cavalry the cannon, the graphics were good, impressive even I would say. It has its difference to TW - good - Im starting to see the limitations of the TW engine unfortunately, and it would struggle to replicate this. If this was a TW title all the AIs men would sit getting blasted by my cannon right in range of my grenadiers instead of hiding in that town where its going to be the devil to get them out. :furious3:

Your right theres no comparison but its TW that dont stack up

edit: I dont really understand why people on here seemed not to like it, I thought it wouldve been what you were waiting for, your loss really, I guess you can keep on waiting for that next patch or expansion which might make RTW almost playable

SwordsMaster

06-08-2005, 13:57

Alright, we got our copy of IG on monday and I gave it a go over tha last 2-3 days. I stand corrected. It is a good game. It needs polish thought, not in the presentation (which is very good) or graphical department but in managing units on the battlefield and better battlefield interface. Morale is also a very important thing that should definitely be added in future patches and/or expansions. So far I havent played any naval battles because my campaign is at a stage where all I have is 1 sloop, but they look much smoother than Age of Sail ones although again, Im not too happy with the controls.

The Diplomacy is way better than in RTW although I noriced that you can scrape a dea out of pretty much anyone if you are not trying to get 100% profitability, and pacific annexations seems way too easy. (In my campaign Austria pacifically annexed the Ottoman Empire, come on!) The quests are a really good plus to the game, and really fun to accomplish.
There are long periods when the only thing you do is click next turn because of lack of resources or buildings available (at the end of an Era usually).
It is impossible to support huge armies which is good and the supply consumption of the armies is well balanced in the sense that the further away they are the more supplies they consume, but IMHO the officer promotion is too slow as it usually takes me about 1-2 battles to annex a country (I've annexed 3 so far, Sweden, Poland and Moldavia) and that is not enough to bring them to another exp level.

Also the turns take surprisingly long to calculate by the AI, specially considering that the bigger part of the map is concealed by war fog. I like the trade routes models and also the capitals, but I miss some more "production centres", say for Russia, not only S. Petersbourg would be able to produce troops, come on!

Also the province division is just gros. The whole Anatolian peninsula plusmiddle east plus Persia in 1 province :furious3: . That is just lame! Come on if you are that lazy you could have just made France 1 province!

So overall, I have to say that the game combines some very good and fresh ideas with a pretty decent engine and AI with rushed (or just stupid) bits and pieces that kinda ruin the feel. Anyway, I liked it overall and I'm going to play it until NTW2 comes out. I hope they patch it though.

Yun Dog

06-09-2005, 02:36

I think Swordsmaster makes a fair assesment of some of the pros and cons of the game. Regarding the cons, first release, unpatched, I think theres hope for some tweaks and small improvements, and there is substantial moddability, probably not with the battle controls tho.

I think if looked at in isolation and not in comparison with other games, or the list of 'wanted features' which seems to be a growing list apon which all games of this type are increasingly judged. Its a bit of napoleonic fun, with some nice graphics which with a few tweaks could have some good replayability and semi decent gameplay.

I guess I dont expect perfection from games so when I get some enjoyment from playing one, well thats a bonus. Got to love the honeymoon period.

I find that during this 'honeymoon period' Im starting to avoid the forums cause these days when you goto a 'fan site forum' all you read are pages long dispositions by some guy whos played it night and day before anyones even got the game, and his attempts to make himself sound intellegent by picking the game to death, and pointing out every short coming in full detail - this is the last thing I want to read when Im still discovering the game for myself, cause somehow after youve read page after page of whining and negativity it does take a little bit of the enjoyment away next time you sit down to play because you start noticing all this stuff, where had you not visited the 'fan' site forum you may have gone on playing oblivious to the games shortcomings for some time to come.

my 2c ~:handball:

Ja'chyra

06-14-2005, 10:00

I bought this game on Sunday and have been playing it ever since, I periodically get bored with all my games and have to try something new :dizzy2: .

The first thing I'd like to say is that it's not RTW, MTW or STW but that's ok because I don't think it wants to be. Like all games I think it has its pros and cons:

Pros

Diplomacy - much more involved than any other game I've played and also very easy to use just click the option you want to use then the country it's directed at.

Naval battles - We like ~:)

Easy - Not the game but the interface I found to be very easy to use and after 10-15 mins I had pretty much figured out what all the buttons do.

Cons

Timer - All of my battles so far have had a 30 minute or so timer, I hate this anyone know how to turn it off?

Militia - Way overpowered for some guys with sticks.

Movement - If you move an army onto a ship you can't then move the ship that turn

Peaceful annexation - Seems way too easy, I think it should be harder.

All in all it's an enjoyable game and I think all of the problems I've seen so far could be easily fixed in a patch, the problem is that they haven't even confirmed if there is going to be a patch never mind what will be in it.

Fragony

06-14-2005, 12:55

I cannot help but being intrigued, the gamespot review doesn't really reflect the score it recieved imho, it sounds like a game with heaps of potential when given a little bit of extra care. The 'it's no Rome' mantra doesn't really apply to me, I could never really get into it for some reason. It should be no surprise that an Eidos game is unfinished, they are probably the cheapest meatbags of the industry when it comes to half-assed products. If there will be a patch I definately intend to pick it up, if only for the strategic map and better diplomacy (and of course the setting GO SHARPE)