Imperial glory demo is out

[bodidley]

Yes it was damn near impossible to hit a specific target at long range. However, Napoleonic battles did not tend to involve too much sharpshooting. As a matter of fact, most of the time it was impossible to see the enemy line in a large battle because hundreds of shots going off meant gunsmoke blocked the view. It was very rare for two battle lines to come into close proximity, as one would usually give way to another and reform before the fire became too accurate. That is precisely the reason why men had to fight in dense formations to inflict casualties. As for the rifles at the time, a piece of cloth had to be wrapped around each shot before firing in order to make sure the projectile articulated with the rifling inside the barrel, making loading extremely cumbersome.

[honvedseg]

Worse, most of the rifles were still muzzle loaded, which required driving the projectile down the barrel through the rifling. Skirmisher units sometimes went forward with two or three loaded rifles per man, discharged them at the enemy, and then fell back out of effective gun range to reload.

The muskets of the day weren't able to hit a man-sized target reliably at 100 meters, but they were shooting at a much larger target, the entire formation of enemy troops. It wasn't until late in the American Civil War that US troops began to make use of improved cover and trenches as standard procedure. I'm not sure when European armies started to fight from cover, abandoning the millenia-old tradition of multiple ranks packed tightly together in the open, using formations designed for mutual protection against sword or spear equipped enemies. Somehow, the Napoleonic era always seemed to be a time of confusion, when they still hadn't figured out what to do with the new gunpowder weapons, but the earlier weapons had already become obsolete.

[efthimios]

Yes, in many ways similar to the two World Wars.

[bodidley]

The fighting in the American civil war was particularly viscious because A. the rifled muskets and expanding projectiles meant that infantry firepower was much deadlier and B. the rifles were still mostly muzzle loaders, and the still relatively slow rate of fire meant the the order of organization was still in dense formations. The first major European experience with trench warfare was in the Boer Wars. Along with trench warfare, concentration camps became an established way of warfare in the same timeframe. The first use of them I can think of was Valeriano Wyler's concentration camp and farm burning campaign to crush the Cuban revolt against Spain in the 1890s. The second use I can think of was when Great Britain used them in conjunction with farm burning to subdue the Boers. The third use that comes to mind was when the United States of America used them in conjunction with farm burning to crush the Filipino independance movement after the end of the Spanish-American war. It is estimated that 400,000 Filipinos starved to death...sad stuff

[malthaussen]

The infantry may be the Queen of Battles, but it was still artillery that caused most of the casualties in the Napoleonic period, hence Nappy's tactic of concentrating a grand battery to pummel the enemy at the point of attack. In fact, IIRC, only in the American Civil War did the infantry briefly gain the ascendency, in that most wounds were caused by musketry, not artillery. And this despite the large numbers of guns employed by both sides in that conflict.

European infantry were still fighting in dense lines even in the Great War; although the British improvised better tactics during the Boer War, it appears they forgot the lesson by 1914. About the only change made was a gradual "thinning out" of the troop density, which judging by the casualty returns of 1914-1918 didn't help very much.

Tactical use of field fortifications goes way back: the first example I am aware of was Sulla at Chaeronea in 86 BCE. Although both sides in the American Civil War used them extensively, the Europeans tended to view that conflict as little more than a bunch of half-trained farmers going at it, and learned basically nothing from observing it. And they call us provincial.

-- Mal

[bodidley]

The reason why the British army didn't "learn" anything from the Boer War to WWI is that they were too dead to pass the info down. What I mean is that the British army at the beggining of WWI was a small proffesional army that was very good at what it did and up-to-date on military methods. The problem, however, was that the small size of the BEF in Europe meant that it was just ground to pieces in the early part of the war, and the grognards never had a chance to warn the young British soldiers...bad, bad, bad for the Young British Soldier.

P.S. I think Fallout 2 is one of the greatest RPGs of all time

[malthaussen]

Well, I certainly agree that the Old Contemptables showed better tactics than the other contestants in August 1914, and that the campaign to the trenches pretty well wiped them out, but let's not forget that the high command of 1914-1918 had a sizeable number of former field-grade officers from the Boer War, who should have been able to pass down a lesson or two, had they learned any. This appears to have been true for some, but not for others. There was still quite a bit too much "shoulder to shoulder" and "to the green fields beyond" nonsense in the British officer corps to believe that the lessons of the Boer War were truly assimilated.


-- Mal

[duncan]

The game is already out and it's 29 ?‚¬ in play.com. Anybody got it or heard something good/bad about it in other forums (I only have access to Slitherine's forums)???

Thank you in advance.

[efthimios]

Someone that I know bought it on Sunday, and says he likes it a lot. No details though. I will not buy it for a few more weeks since I do not have money (or job yet).
29 doesn't sound bad to me though.

[duncan]

Someone that I know bought it on Sunday, and says he likes it a lot

Do you trust this friend of yours??? I don't trust mines (not in PC games affairs)


Anyway, I just bought "Knights of Honor" (I will crush the Roman Empire for you, Efthimios , don't worry )so I suppose I can wait till the first wave of "Man! Look at those graphics" it's over...

[efthimios]

I have heard some bad things about KoH so I have no plans on getting that.

He is not my friend. I do not completely trust him since he keeps buying the Total Club Manager series, and a few other reasons. But if he likes it so much, it should be at least an average game. Well, the demo was fun.

[duncan]

he keeps buying the Total Club Manager series

LOL

Don't trust him, please. He must be a fanboy


I was miserable enough to buy the first one and I told myself "Oh, What have I done????". Keep going back to CM/FM series (well, I accidentally broke my FM 2005 CD the other day , have to wait till FM 2006 -with Everton in Champions league )

I don't have too much hope in KoH too but I bought it at a reasonable price and I was trying to fill the gap till the next big thing.

[efthimios]

I love the football manager games ever since my first (the original Football Manager for the 464) but I have been very disappointed with the modern football manager games. They seem to be going into either the "look at me how beautiful I am without any brains" category or the "football manager the spreadsheet" category. The Total Club Manager felt like a gift from the gods at first (1999 version IIRC) but had some stupid bugs that ruined it, like whenever a player did a foul he would get a yellow card or something like that, don't remember anymore. I also tried the 2001 version to find new and improved bugs, and then after (the same guy I mentioned earlier) was constantly telling me how good 2004 was, I got that as well, only to find much better graphics and some of the same bugs from the 2001 and the 1999 versions!!! So I said "**** them" and never getting one from the series no matter what. Well, unless it comes with a 50GBP note I guess.
I do not enjoy the Championship Manager series (now F.M.) since the very first version on the ST. The quick answer is I find it boring. The funny thing is it is not solely because of the graphics. For example I LOVE Multi Player Soccer Manager by D&H Games (whatever happened to them I wonder) which was giving you the results of the game in a newspaper format, together with anything important (crowd violence, red cards etc) and still play it from time to time! The other, personal favourite together with MPSM is the original Player Manager (never touched the joystick though), which had almost everything I liked in such a game. Perhaps one day there will be another football manager game that I will like, but I have lost hope for some time now.

About founding CM series boring, it is not like I am a sucker for graphics, for example a couple of old favourite games (no my most, just in the top 30 or something) were Balance of Power, 8th Army, Red Lighting....I still can't explain why CM just makes me want to sleep.

[duncan]

Have you played "Ultimate Soccer Manager 98", Efthimios??? I enjoyed it a lot.

[duncan]

The firsts "Imperial Glory" reviews in amazon.co.uk are priceless (as always)

Well, firstly it has to be said, not as good as rome total war!...Historically its completely ridiculous and a really serious flaw...hopefully the total war team will tackle this period and show eidos how its done..............

Yeah...Remember those egyptians in RTW (for example)? err......He says he is and "politics student at warwick uni". Oh, I'm impressed. Yeah, TW games are historically accurate...not to mention the "mad and hairy beyond reason" gauls...

He spoils it all when...

the good fellas at eidos could have done a bit more research looking at rome

Hope you're not talking about druids in IG.



He makes a good point anyway when he says that...

its biggest flaw makes the campaign side almost unplayable; PEACEFUL ASSIMILATION

It's not the first time I read it about this game. And bugs, as always.

[efthimios]

I have played USM98 but didn't like it much.

Peaceful assimilation flaw? what is that?

I wouldn't trust anyone from the uni of warwick studying politics, still, just because he studies politics doesn't mean he knows war... You see he is not a strategist as someone else

I haven't bought the game yet (still looking for a job), but I will get it eventualy.

I will not eve comment on the realism of RTW, it's a joke.

[duncan]

By the reviewer, his/her words, not mine

PEACEFUL ASSIMILATION

when playing as Britain, what is the point in defensive alliances if France simply peacefully assimiliates most of Europe?! Historically its completely ridiculous and a really serious flaw.

And he adds

but the thought that the whole of spain, which viciously resisted French invasion through savage guerilla warfare, would simply decide to become part of France after only 5 years of playing time is ridiculous.

[efthimios]

That doesn't sound very good (historicaly accurate or not irrelevant), but perhaps he should move his ass and do something about it (like attack or also move diplomaticaly) instead of complaining that the other country is getting powerful.