Matrix Games Forums

IG is fun - I'd rather not make comparisons of whether one is better than the other, since that's very subjective. CoG is also a lot of fun and is entirely turn-based and more detailed. To answer the previous question, yes it is "WEGO" or simultaneous orders and simultaneous execution.

ORIGINAL: Queeg

It's a matter of taste, I guess. I think IG is a much better game than RTW. And a very good game in its own right.

[:)]Welcome to the Matrix forums Queeg, i am sure you will find everything you are looking for with Crown Of Glory. You don't know me, but i have had the pleasure of reading your posts in the IG forum and always appreciated your observations and reflections on Imperial Glory. I don't subscribe to their forum, or many others for that matter, but since you are here...Welcome! You might come across another familiar name here at Matrix: Mr. Frag...he is an important VIP at the War in the Pacific forums and apparently appreciates Napoleonic Era games as well[;)].
IG is a great game and i have enjoyed it immensely, but my summer will be spent with COG as i was lucky enough to beta-test it and i probably can't say much more...so...you came to the right place, keep your eyes peeled[;)].

ORIGINAL: Nego

Guys,

If you have missed HPS Waterloo then you gotta take a look. Its sex on a disk!!!!

Hmmm..Waterloo or my Amber Lynn disk tonight....decisions, decisions, decisions...[;)]

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

Hmmm..Waterloo or my Amber Lynn disk tonight....decisions, decisions, decisions...[;)]

[/quote][X(]Oh, good god man! She's probably collecting social security by now[:D]...you need to do some shopping[:-][;)]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

Hmmm..Waterloo or my Amber Lynn disk tonight....decisions, decisions, decisions...[;)]

[X(]Oh, good god man! She's probably collecting social security by now[:D]...you need to do some shopping[:-][;)]

[/quote]

LOL...on DVD they never age..............

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Welcome to the Matrix forums Queeg, i am sure you will find everything you are looking for with Crown Of Glory. You don't know me, but i have had the pleasure of reading your posts in the IG forum and always appreciated your observations and reflections on Imperial Glory. I don't subscribe to their forum, or many others for that matter, but since you are here...Welcome! You might come across another familiar name here at Matrix: Mr. Frag...he is an important VIP at the War in the Pacific forums and apparently appreciates Napoleonic Era games as well[;)].
IG is a great game and i have enjoyed it immensely, but my summer will be spent with COG as i was lucky enough to beta-test it and i probably can't say much more...so...you came to the right place, keep your eyes peeled[;)].

Good to be aboard. I'm a long-time lurker here.

I do enjoy IG for what it is. Like all games, it has its strengths and weaknesses, but I find it great fun on balance. No use lamenting what a game isn't, if what it is is fun.

Crown of Glory looks to be much of what IG isn't. And that looks fun, too.

I agree with ya! IG is more of a Market game. It'll get kids interested in history(maybe) but it is not history or even military history. But it is "fun" to play.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Queeg

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

Welcome to the Matrix forums Queeg, i am sure you will find everything you are looking for with Crown Of Glory. You don't know me, but i have had the pleasure of reading your posts in the IG forum and always appreciated your observations and reflections on Imperial Glory. I don't subscribe to their forum, or many others for that matter, but since you are here...Welcome! You might come across another familiar name here at Matrix: Mr. Frag...he is an important VIP at the War in the Pacific forums and apparently appreciates Napoleonic Era games as well[;)].
IG is a great game and i have enjoyed it immensely, but my summer will be spent with COG as i was lucky enough to beta-test it and i probably can't say much more...so...you came to the right place, keep your eyes peeled[;)].

Good to be aboard. I'm a long-time lurker here.

I do enjoy IG for what it is. Like all games, it has its strengths and weaknesses, but I find it great fun on balance. No use lamenting what a game isn't, if what it is is fun.

Crown of Glory looks to be much of what IG isn't. And that looks fun, too.

Everything in CoG looks absolutely stunning: the graphics, the depth, the gameplay...

My only concern so far would be the casualty results I have seen in some of the battles. One side takes NO casualties while the other side suffers something like 30,000 casualties.

It seems like an "all or nothing" consequence of battle.

Surely, even 10,000 routing soldiers firing blindly in all directions are bound to kill at least one enemy soldier...

This reminds me too much of the lop-sided land battles in UV...

Any comments?

This was Eric's response to that question....

quote:

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon
Eric, regarding the casuality reports....what type of battle is it that can result in one side receiving 5560 casualties and the other side 0?..I've heard of routs, but this?.....


Not 100% sure as I didn't watch that one, but... if one side was of particularly low morale/supply and was quickly routed at the start of the engagement, the casualties could have been incurred during the rout/pursuit rather than in "normal" battle. Also, forces cut off from LOS/LOC have a greater chance to surrender, which could have caused something like that.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
Everything in CoG looks absolutely stunning: the graphics, the depth, the gameplay...

My only concern so far would be the casualty results I have seen in some of the battles. One side takes NO casualties while the other side suffers something like 30,000 casualties.

It seems like an "all or nothing" consequence of battle.

Surely, even 10,000 routing soldiers firing blindly in all directions are bound to kill at least one enemy soldier...

This reminds me too much of the lop-sided land battles in UV...

Any comments?

It's not a problem, keep in mind you're getting glimpses of the game. In actual play I have never had a bloodless battle where both sides fought and there wasn't some kind of surrender.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

This was Eric's response to that question....

quote:

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon
Eric, regarding the casuality reports....what type of battle is it that can result in one side receiving 5560 casualties and the other side 0?..I've heard of routs, but this?.....


Not 100% sure as I didn't watch that one, but... if one side was of particularly low morale/supply and was quickly routed at the start of the engagement, the casualties could have been incurred during the rout/pursuit rather than in "normal" battle. Also, forces cut off from LOS/LOC have a greater chance to surrender, which could have caused something like that.

Regards,

- Erik

It would be interesting to have a more detailed idea of how the combat system works.

Even some routing soldiers will fight back if attacked.

It's the thousands of casualties vs NO casualties that I am worried about.

Seeing 5,000 casualties vs 400 would seem to be more in line with a small routing force.

Even Napoleon, on his very best day, with the enemy on its very worst day, suffered some French casualties (even if it was because they fell on their own bayonets). [:D]

And let us not forget that before soldiers rout, they can at least get off that first round of muskets and cannon fire...

Surely, not all of the troops would rout at the same time?

Was there ever a Napoleonic battle (no matter how small) that resulted in NO casualties being suffered by one side?

The game does work as you would expect Warfare. I think you are reading too much into one report excerpt in this case. I have not fought a battle where I did not sustain losses.

Do casualities include the number of troopers who surrender? If so, historical Napoleon did inflict casualities w/o the bloodshed of even a single man on his side on his return from Elba. (~,~)v

ORIGINAL: Queeg

It's a matter of taste, I guess. I think IG is a much better game than RTW. And a very good game in its own right. It has a much better campaign than RTW and I find the battles more interesting and challenging. Although there are several mods that greatly improve RTW (and a Napoleonic mod is in the works), vanilla RTW, with its screeching women, broken naval battles and generally brain-dead AI, was a big step backward in the series.

Can you "objectively explain" as to why do you consider IG to be better than RTW, if it can be explained? Please, I am not trying to be confrontational, I'd really like to hear your opinion...

Maybe there's nothing to explain, maybe that's just personal subjective opinion and I'd accept that as good answer as well [;)]

Oleg

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The game does work as you would expect Warfare. I think you are reading too much into one report excerpt in this case. I have not fought a battle where I did not sustain losses.

That's good to hear Erik.

The game looks so darn good that I thought it best to raise the issue to see if anything needed adjusting. [:)]

The only battles where there are zero casualties on one side and (perhaps many) casualties on the other are battles in which one side attempts to flee at the outset of the battle: in this case the reported loss is from pursuit which may consist entirely of attritional losses.

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Can you "objectively explain" as to why do you consider IG to be better than RTW, if it can be explained? Please, I am not trying to be confrontational, I'd really like to hear your opinion...

Maybe there's nothing to explain, maybe that's just personal subjective opinion and I'd accept that as good answer as well [;)]

Oleg

...
I'll post some of my "objective explanations" just to round things out:
Imperial Glory... The campaign is a game in itself with a slow, deliberate beginning full of diplomacy and the machinations of the era. The battles grow in intensity as the game progresses and are done in environments that are jaw droppingly beautiful. You can actually use buildings, ie:enter/fortify, which adds a new dimension to IG. The Nations' units use their native tongue so...if the uniform is missing a button[:'(] the audio may distract you from noticing. The gameplay is fun, pure unadulterated fun, and i enjoy the endless tactics i can employ to attain my goal...whether in the strategic or tactical mode.

On a personal, subjective note: The time period is FAR more interesting to me than RGW, in which i find myself clicking end turn without a second thought. Medievil Total War is far better than RGW IMO, but not as "fun" as Imperial Glory[8D].

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Can you "objectively explain" as to why do you consider IG to be better than RTW, if it can be explained? Please, I am not trying to be confrontational, I'd really like to hear your opinion...

Maybe there's nothing to explain, maybe that's just personal subjective opinion and I'd accept that as good answer as well [;)]

Oleg

Sure. Much of it is purely subjective. I enjoy horse and musket era games more than ancient era. So that's part of it.

But RTW, for all its glitter, fell short in several important areas of substance. The strategic map with tactical elements (mountain passes, river crossings, field fortifications, etc.)? Great, even brilliant, idea. Problem is the AI never used them. Sure, I could use them to beat up on the AI, which already was a push-over, but that hardly makes for a great game.

The campaign game was shallow. Diplomacy was essentially meaningless. Yes, you could enter into alliances, but the AI rarely adhered to them and, given the lackluster battlefield AI, you never needed their help anyway. And many of the "features" that were added simply to try to add some modest level of challenge to the game - revolts, Senate missions and plague - struck me as overly contrived and added more nuisance than strategy. (The silly busy-work Senate missions were especially ridiculous.) Overall, the campaign was little more than an excuse to string together a series of tactical battles; it offered nothing of substance on its own.

Which, in itself, might not have been so bad had the AI not been so weak. On the strategic map, the AI insisted on dividing its forces into multiple little armies - yet without taking advantage of terrain - so you could easily pick them off piecemeal in a series of lopsided battles (after only a few of which your general would have maybe ten stars and hence be all but invincible in most any battle). And the battlefield AI bordered on atrocious. Meet their line, hit their flanks with cavalry, they break and run. Every time. Or, in the seiges, they stand fast on their little platform in the center of town and just die under a hail of arrows. I fought a few seiges where I didn't lose a single man! The campaign fairly quickly turned into one lackluster battle after another, with precious little in the way of strategy in between.

Of course, if you grew tired of the repetitve battles, you could just buy off most of the enemy armies with bribes. Which was especially easy because the AI kept its armies scattered all over the map, just waiting for you. There's something definitely wrong with a game whose core is the tactical battlefield when players find themselves tempted to just bribe the enemy into submission.

Then there were a series of bugs and oddities. Silly units like screeching women, head hurlers and bum flashers. AI armies with nothing but warhounds. Massive enemy navies with nonsensical auto-resolve combat results. And the infamous save-game seige bug.

I recognize that some of these issues were adressed in patches. Many more were fixed or wired-around in the various excellent mods. But, the fact remains that RTW out of the box had more problems than a game of its lineage should have had. And many remain.

I've played the TW series since the day STW hit the shelves and have mostly enjoyed it. But RTW, in my view, was a step backward. I understand that most of the development effort went into the graphics, to the detriment of the campaign and AI. I can accept that if it means that the developer now can spend more time on the rest of the game for future installments. I must say, though, that their decision to bail on RTW after only a couple of patches and with serious problems remaining doesn't bode well for the future of the series. We'll see.

As for IG, it's still very early. But, out of the box, it has these advantages over RTW: the campaign is far more challenging and interesting, the AI is stronger, the land battles are more challenging and just as fun and you can fight the naval battles yourself (or auto-resolve them with results that make sense). Yes, the battles are too quick at present - but you can't give RTW the nod there because the battles were too quick there too and was one of the first things the modders struggled to fix. (I know because I was one of them.) IG still has some rough edges, but the developer still has time to fix them. (If they don't, I'll complain about them too.)

And, again, IG covers a period I prefer. So there's my take.

Hi, I'm just passing through!

But for what an outsiders opinion is worth, Imperial Glory is the primary reason I'm visiting this site.

Now it may just be me, but I'm hoping that this game (as well as the others from this genre) will be far more than just the (topic described) anti-thesis of what Imperial Glory is supposedly to have lacked!

Now also, I admit to have more interest in belly-button lint than I do in RTW, but it seems to follow IG reviews and critics around like the proverbial bad penny. Well, for my 2 cents worth, I really hope that a dislike for Imperial Glory isn't a prerequiste or a preference for the buying of these games.

removed