Talk:Imperial Glory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Anyone willing to expand on the article?
I've deleted some POV content, and made the article a little more neutral, and added an info box for the game, but I'm too lazy to find an image of the Imperial Glory box. Anyone willing to do the honors? As well as adding a bit more content? I'm not really that familiar with the game itself. - XX55XX
- I put in some work on it. Better? Mikademus 20:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved "essay" to talk page
An anonymous editor made a long response to a section of the main article, however it is a long way from being in the proper encyclopedic flavor and style, is more in the manner of a college essay. Thus I removed it, but am putting it here so it hasn't been completely wasted all for nothing. Mathmo 16:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Response to Criticism
In response to the criticisms mentioned above, I'd like to make a neutral response as an Hostorian, Militrary tactician and, possibly most imporatntly, a player of the game.
There have been criticisms in several gamer magazines and internet sites that in Imperial glory, the units have very litlle AI and this is represented by the fact that it is very cumbersome to command the battle and move the units. This however, can also be seen as an improvement rather than a let - down as it creates a sense of realism and excitement not seen in any other game of its kind.
Armies and military tactics in the times of 1790 - 1860 basically dictated that the best option was to line your soldiers up against each other, fire their rifles and hope the best man wins. This is represented by the length of time for units to act on orders, however, once the units begin to act upon their ordrs, they carry them out very siftly indeed. This " flaw " is also a representation that the armies of 1790 - 1860 had, in some circumstances, very poor lines of command which were very slow at relaying orders all the way from the commander to the troops on the ground.
This forces the player to adapt their tactics and also to think like military commanders of the day, in order to get the most out of their armies.
Also, the criticism that there is not a " pause " option has actually boulderized the fact that the player can simply open the " options menu " which pauses the game autonatically.
The criticism that " there's realatively little you can do in a single turn " is, in my opinion as a fan and player of the game, utterly false as there are many forces and factors to take into consideration.
For example: should I decalre war on / make peace with / sign a defensive pact with ......, should I focus on building schools, hospitals or army barracks, why have ...... moved an enormous amount of troops onto my border etc. If you fail to take these things into consideration and act on them, you are likely to face military invasion from another world pwer, or possibly a rebellion from unhappy citizens in one of your colonized countries.
There is also incredible depth to both the " map " and " war " modes of fighting which are not represented by these criticsims. For example, if, in the " war " mode, you march your troops across a march, they will incur a severe tiredness penalty - due to their cumbersome fighting equipment - when compared to if they had simply walked across a road or piece of grassland. Also, in the " map " mode the players must make such choices as: If I build " Specialised Schools " in my Home Country, my empire will be able to research more than any other, however, this might create resentment in one of my colonized countries as they don't even have " Primary Schools " yet.
Lastly, these statements are not provided to dismiss the criticisms made earlier, merely to provide an alternate view in order to create a balanced argument.
