Imperial Glory demo

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

Finally had a chance to play the demo of this Napoleonic "Total War"
game.

I'm in 2 minds about this game : the strategic portion (bunch of static
screens in the demo) seems ok with the usual diplomatic, research and
unit building options that are detailed enough without getting into
micro-management.

Then there are 2 (fictional) tactical battles you get to play and here
the problems start : you can't give orders to your units while the game
is paused. When the game is running it runs so fast that it turns into a
clickfest game of "last man standing". The Napoleonic tactics are there
allright : an infantry unit that's getting charged by cavalry forms a
neat square, brushes of the cavalry and goes into line again. The
problem is this complete cycle takes about 10 seconds so don't even
think about putting some arty into the square. Even when it takes only a
second to unlimber your horse-artillery.

Can these tactical battles be omitted so you can choose to only play the
strategic game ? I don't know.

Is the strategic game deep enough to warrant buying it ? Another good
question for which the demo has no answer. Guess I'll have to wait for
the reviews.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Oleg Mastruko wrote:

> I would put hope in strategic layer, but why bother? Frankly,
> what I'd want from IG is good, realistic tactical 3D battles. As far
> as the strategy and diplomacy go, I think it will be far better
> simulated in couple of Nappy games from Matrix, currently in
> development.

Got my eye on Crown of Glory too - http://www.west-civ.com/

Looks like it might even be finished before Empires in Arms which has
suffered a bit from having to implement the miriad of rules of the
boardgame.

You're probably right about Imperial Glory - why bother. [But it looks
so good you *want* it to be a good wargame - sigh]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 16 Apr 2005 09:33:00 GMT, Eddy Sterckx <eddysterckx@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Finally had a chance to play the demo of this Napoleonic "Total War"
>game.

Big letdown for me.

I was disappointed by Rome Total War to begin with (though not
as disappointed as some other regular posters on this group). Imperial
Glory's tactical "model" is so dumbed down, RTW is full fledged
military simulation compared to this garbage.

Judging from IG board discussions, developers never even tried
to achieve any level of realism, they just wanted to make "Nappy
flavored dumbed down RTW clone". In which they succeeded, judging from
demo.

I would put hope in strategic layer, but why bother? Frankly,
what I'd want from IG is good, realistic tactical 3D battles. As far
as the strategy and diplomacy go, I think it will be far better
simulated in couple of Nappy games from Matrix, currently in
development. IG failed in what oughta been its selling point - 3D tac
battles.

O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 16 Apr 2005 07:19:29 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Got my eye on Crown of Glory too - http://www.west-civ.com/

Me too, it's "the other" Nappy game from Matrix as of recently,
the other being EiA.

Speaking of Nappy strategic level games, they seem like ideal
wargaming "field" for implementing diplomacy, topic we discussed here
recently. If there was any period in human history, with 7-8 almost
equal powers, involved in various diplomatic/military games when
almost everyone could be sided with anyone else, and then in a month's
time in war with same power that was his ally a month before, then
it's Napoleonic era.

Japanese Sengoku Jidai with all them warring clans is also
diplomacy-intensive, backstabbing-friendly period, which is why I
liked Shogun Total War so much. (And even though computer AI was far
from brilliant in its diplomatic "efforts".)

>Looks like it might even be finished before Empires in Arms which has
>suffered a bit from having to implement the miriad of rules of the
>boardgame.

Indeed. )

>You're probably right about Imperial Glory - why bother. [But it looks
>so good you *want* it to be a good wargame - sigh]

Agreed. Quite similar to Silent Hunter 3, IMO. Which looks even
better, and IS a better game, though still very unrealistic and
plagued with more bugs than shining reviews would want you to
believe...

O.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Well, guys I don't know what are you looking for but this demo is not bad. I
have been playing second mission twice (first is for practice) and it was
quite interesting. First attempt was disaster for me but in second I put my
artillery on high ground, cavalry on flanks and then that was another story.
Quite realistic. True, game speed is a little to fast but developers can
solve this very simple with standard game speed types (slow, normal, fast)
and screen scroll MUST be like in Total War (it is very annoying to rotate
screen by arrows) and this game should be quite good on battle levels. Naval
battles looks very interesting also - looks like something that is missing
in Total War games. I don't know about strategic level.



"Oleg Mastruko" <oleg@bug.hr> wrote in message
news:hmr261p0kh42balmb59skmkr8jep1d67ob@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2005 07:19:29 -0700, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
> <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Got my eye on Crown of Glory too - http://www.west-civ.com/
>
> Me too, it's "the other" Nappy game from Matrix as of recently,
> the other being EiA.
>
> Speaking of Nappy strategic level games, they seem like ideal
> wargaming "field" for implementing diplomacy, topic we discussed here
> recently. If there was any period in human history, with 7-8 almost
> equal powers, involved in various diplomatic/military games when
> almost everyone could be sided with anyone else, and then in a month's
> time in war with same power that was his ally a month before, then
> it's Napoleonic era.
>
> Japanese Sengoku Jidai with all them warring clans is also
> diplomacy-intensive, backstabbing-friendly period, which is why I
> liked Shogun Total War so much. (And even though computer AI was far
> from brilliant in its diplomatic "efforts".)
>
>>Looks like it might even be finished before Empires in Arms which has
>>suffered a bit from having to implement the miriad of rules of the
>>boardgame.
>
> Indeed. )
>
>>You're probably right about Imperial Glory - why bother. [But it looks
>>so good you *want* it to be a good wargame - sigh]
>
> Agreed. Quite similar to Silent Hunter 3, IMO. Which looks even
> better, and IS a better game, though still very unrealistic and
> plagued with more bugs than shining reviews would want you to
> believe...
>
> O.
>