Imperial glory demo is out

[duncan]

For your pleasure


http://www.download.com/Imperial-Glory- ... 78359.html


Interesting how the game has been tagged as Napoleonic: Total war. Some Total War fans are very angry about it...forgetting the fact that the Total War series took ideas from a lot of games: Lords of the Realm 2, Paradox Games, Civ series and many more...Could Medieval Total War be Lords Of The Realm III (in fact, IV)? Anyway, I'm talking about CERTAIN TW fans...


Bye

[efthimios]

Oh man, I tried the demo. Not only it runs much better than RTW, it also looks better IMO.
If they do not manage to screw this up somehow with the strategy part, this could be the best game set for the period bar none.
I like this period. Well, I am very good at this period that is, not so much that I like it. It doesn't matter the game (UMS+II, Fields of Glory, Gettysburg (sid's), etc), I always kick ass at this period. Don't know why. I played the demo, easily defeated the easy mission, then the first time I lost the harder one, with him surviving with like 60 soldiers (out of 700?), and the second time sending him back to the stone ages (I lost like 70 soldiers and killed everyone of them). I will not be able to buy it as soon as it is released (no money), but hopefuly I will early June.
I hope they do not forget to incude a good AI for all parts of the game.

[duncan]

to screw this up somehow with the strategy part

The slideshow included in the demo looked good (much better than the RTW strategy part), but you never know...half of the demo is pure marketing. I played the easy battle and it looked nice. I used several tactics for fun, with devastating results (for my troops). If the stratey map is as complex as it seems, it will be a great game. I don't have much faith in Pyro though (maybe because they're spanish ), they'll screw up the AI or something.

I like this period

I remember Cossacks, War and Peace (not the book, I prefer the book) and didn't like any of those. I have the money, but I don't know what to do. Poor AI worries me and there are a few playable nations (only major ones). I'll make up my mind when the first user's reviews come out (after the intial rush of "This GaMe ROOlz >)").




Bye

[bodidley]

I thought the combat was a bit "arcadey". I always seem to win the more difficult scenario with about 5-25 guys left and the enemy is totally annihilated. If the strategic game is like this, then it will all be a matter of waiting for your enemies to attack each other I did have fun, but I'd say I had about $15 worth of fun, not $50 worth.

[efthimios]

I was worried a bit that there aren't many options for formations etc, but apparently in the full game after training and research there are many more options....
As for 25 guys left, you can do better!

[bodidley]

As for 25 guys left, you can do better!

Yes, I can but my point stands about the battles being a bit "arcadey". One frequent dissapointment in Napoleonic games for me is that cavalry tends to be way out of balance, and it was in this demo. The problem I have with buying this game is that if it costs standard full price ($50) , I'd better enjoy it or I'd feel really screwed. With something that costs much less, as a consumer I'd be more willing to take a risk on it. That's why DVDs sell so well.

[pipfromslitherine]

How long would you need to enjoy it for to feel you had gotten the value from it? It's an interesting question for us as developers.

A DVD is (say) $15, and most people will watch is maybe a few times? So you're looking at a little over $2 an hour. So would people be happy with a $50 game that gave them 20-25 hours of fun?

Discuss....

Cheers

Pip

[bodidley]

The problem is that if the game sucks, it won't give me 20-25 hours of fun, on the contrary, it will give me several hours of dissapointment , frustration , and RAGE ! If a DVD is bad, I won't really care, because I only paid $15 for it. So what risk is there in paying between $10-$25 for a DVD? By the same logic, I'm more willing to pay $25-35 for a game than $50. If I'm sure the game is great, I'll dish out the $50, but if I'm not, I just won't buy it. I think the gaming industry has to learn that they are not providing a commodity that the consumer needs to maintain a standard of living (salt, water, electricity, plumbing, food) and developers don't have a monopoly on the product, so gamers can buy something else, buy another game, or stick with the oldies. So long as the industry charges $50 for a single game, it will never have the same kind of customer base as DVDs.

[efthimios]

Why do you say the battles are arcadey?

As for the cavalry, I seriously doubt it it is too powerful in this game. Apart from the first game, after that with a bit effort the enemy cavalry is easily defeated with your infantry, if it is prepared for it... Perhaps you just need different tactics?

The only thing I am worried about so far about the ability to outflank with a cavalry unit and go for the enemy artillery. Need more games to be sure though.


Pip, as for your question, in my case some games, no matter how good they are, they are too freaking expensive. I see some games released for 34.99 and even 39.99 (here in Wales, but also back in Plymouth) and I am like "yeah right". This is usualy with games like from Microsoft for example, Flight Simulator or Age of series, that takes ages for the price to come down. I am currently having fun with a game I want to buy (TOCA Race Driver 2 for the PC) for months now but even though the game is like a year or more old it still is listed in the local GAME for 34.99. There is no way I am going to pay for it, even though I want that game. Buying from another source is out of the question unfortunately. I don't mind seeing a price of 35 GBP on release but if after a month or two the price hasn't fallen at 24.99 or so, I don't usualy buy it. And that is even when I have a job, unlike now.

In general I do not think it is fair to say the time/price is the same as a movie. Unless the game is crap, or the movie is your favourite movie of the last few years, you are going to get far many more hours of entertainment from a game than from a movie.

[bodidley]

Why do you say the battles are arcadey?

As for the cavalry, I seriously doubt it it is too powerful in this game. Apart from the first game, after that with a bit effort the enemy cavalry is easily defeated with your infantry, if it is prepared for it... Perhaps you just need different tactics?

The only thing I am worried about so far about the ability to outflank with a cavalry unit and go for the enemy artillery. Need more games to be sure though.

The infantry is completely vulnerable in some formations, but in "square" which is actually just a dense block, it is totally invincible. This means that infantry and cavalry defeat eachother in a very "rock paper scissors" way. The positions of the troops don't make a particularly big difference, because they flatten eachother so quickly. It's an even bigger clickfest than RTW. Entertaining in ways though. Again, $15 worth of fun.

[efthimios]

I have different experience with the demo than you then.

I do not find the square to be invicible. As for in general having the infantry be vulnerable, well, of course it is, they are not wearing like copper or iron armor or anything. They are supposed to die faster than in RTW and other games of that period.

I have yet to lose an infantry from enemy cavalry (Without using square), as long as my infantry is waiting for the enemy charge/attack and not pre occupied with another enemy unit. Attack face on against infantry from cavalry (AI and human) so far seems to be working right.

As for the clickfest, I found RTW much worse than this game. At least here the units seem to behave more intelligibly (not like my spelling).

[duncan]

A DVD is (say) $15, and most people will watch is maybe a few times? So you're looking at a little over $2 an hour. So would people be happy with a $50 game that gave them 20-25 hours of fun?

Very interesting. I usually think that one certain game is worth the money when I enjoyed playing it, one hour or one milion hour, but in cuantitative terms, I must say I would be happy with the following:

1 ?‚¬ => 1 hour


Don't know how many pounds or $, but you'll figure it out. Anyway, in strategy games this is different, because turn-based games are usually slow-paced:


For Strategy games 1 ?‚¬ => 1/2 hour


I play GoT+Spartan for over 200+ hours, I think


Going to cinema here in Spain it's about 6 ?‚¬ for a 1 h 1/2 movie (without pop-corn and/or other noise producers) The difference is noticeable...Anyway, there must be something wrong with this reasoning, because my girlfriend doesn't get it at all, and she's smart (smarter than me).

Bye

[honvedseg]

Except in extremely rare and unusual circumstances, I NEVER pay more than $30 USD for a game, and generally wait until the price drops under $20. Spartan was one of the pricier ones I bought, at $29.95, if I recall.

Maybe next year I'll get to try RTW, if it ever drops under twenty bucks, but they still want way too much for it, in spite of the bugs and inadequate AI.

For $50 or more, a program had better improve my life, not just keep me distracted for a few hours. The "value" of a program isn't easy to determine. If it keeps me only marginally entertained for weeks before I get sick of it, that's probably on par with one that blows my socks off for a couple evenings, and then ends, with no decent replayability. My long-term favorites are all games with the ability to play more than one side, with multiple scenarios, a random generator, or a non-linear sequence of events, which allows/requires you to play it differently each time. A lot of "empire builder" games meet that requirement, but only a few manage to be intelligent and enjoyable in the process.

[pipfromslitherine]

I might spawn a suitably titled thread to discuss this further

Pip

[duncan]

Just to link the two main discussions, Imperial glory will be released May 21st and it will cost around 29 ?‚¬, 18 pounds, in play.com (ships to all Europe), don't know in USA.

I'll wait till my fellow Levy Spearman Efthimios gives it thums up (or down)

Bye

[bodidley]

I have different experience with the demo than you then.

I do not find the square to be invicible. As for in general having the infantry be vulnerable, well, of course it is, they are not wearing like copper or iron armor or anything. They are supposed to die faster than in RTW and other games of that period.

In the demo the infantry always engages at almost blank point range, something on par with 25m. In the period, the infantry would engage as early as 125m-175m, which is why dense formations were neccesary to produce hits with fairly inaccurate weoponry (at long range that is, at close range they were murderous). Battles did not go faster in the Napoleonic era. While at Cannae it took about four hours for over 70,000 men to die, at Eylau or Borodino the fighting lasted over eight hours.

[efthimios]

I didn't say battles were ending faster. I said people(soldiers) were dying faster.

I do not think it is wise to start thinking about realism for ranges and whatnot. If you start talking about this kind of realism you might as well stop playing 99.999% of the games out there.
In terms of game it feels alright to me the distances they are in this game.

[bodidley]

[quote="efthimios"]I didn't say battles were ending faster. I said people(soldiers) were dying faster.

quote]

70,000 men certainly didn't die at Borodino, and the fighting was continuous. By my reckoning men weren't dying faster. I have to disagree with you that adding some realism would totally ruin gameplay, I'm not suggesting battes should last eight hours. My point is just that the firepower of infantry goes into effect a bit sooner, so it is difficult to get your men at blank point range, and cavalry have to risk being shot at for longer. Forming into a "square" doesn't make infantry impervious to cavalry attacks, and they certainly don't suffer all of their losses and destruction instantaneously on contact. The same goes with infantry in a line being attack by cavalry. I'm not saying the game is terrible, I'm just saying I found it to have a "rock, paper, scissors" feel. It's not like I'm saying you can't buy it!

[IainMcNeil]

I'm pretty sure Napoleonic infantry wouldn't hit much at 150m. The would probably be about as accurate as a paint ball gun and you've probably all seen how they spiral out of control after a few meters. The muskets they used were not rifled (except for Sharpe & his Green Jackets and they did not get much use cos of the low loading times). Anything over 100 paces was unlikely to do much damage.

They often saved their first volley for close range because it was always the most effective. Many of the infantry were not well drilled, though the British & French were pretty good. Many of the Militia units were terrified of the noise of a volley, and I've even heard stories of some units running away after firing one shot at enemy cavalry in the distance, due to the sound.

[malthaussen]

From the dustbin of history...

Around about 1780, the Prussians conducted a firing experiment. They deployed a company line of Guards infantry and at 100 paces set up a cloth target six feet high and of company frontage, then fired off a volley. Of approximately 100 shots fired, exactly six hit the target. So you can see that the smoothbore musket was not very effective, even at that range. Results improved dramatically at 50 paces or less, but I don't know the exact figures.

As for the question of enjoyability vs price, this is hard to calculate because of many different variables. I remember buying Fallout when it first came out, for 50 USD. I finished in about 20 hours, seemingly half of which was spent watching load screens. The game had several bugs, the most egregious of which was a total crash just at the moment of game completion. I returned it, but later bought it again in a bundle with Fallout 2, at about 35 USD. OTOH, I've bought the Baldur's Gate series twice, after lending the first out to a friend who then moved across the country. I consider BG to be more replayable than Fallout, and so I don't cry (too much) about how much I've spent on it, and I still play it, whereas I rarely fire up Fallout these days.

-- Mal