Empires

Imperial Glory is an interesting addition to the turn based strategy game. Lot's of mods to enhance the gameplay.

Moderator: TAFN staff

ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Empires

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

Is it me, or have the developers of IG seriously rushed their work on the 'Austrian' (Should be Austro-Hungarian) Empire?

In addition to this, hello! Ottomans! Empire had a larger population than France and Prussia put together.

Also, it also seems like the Austria empire has pretty crappy troops...game seems to give them a raw deal. In the demo, their troops are markedly inferior.

Any thoughts?

Plus, what do you think of Empires so far?
jrdrums
Lieutenant
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by jrdrums »

I think your wrong about the empired.... completly!

First of all,it was a demo so we don't know how strong or weak the units will be. And you can also have your men gain experience.

And the empire of Austria - Hungry is the same as calling it Austria. And hwo said the Ottmas were not in the game? There are going to be numerous other groups to fight you just cannot play as them. And if I am not mistaken, the game is supposed to be like a Naploeon kinda thing. Which would mean you could play as the coalition against France - Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, or Russia- against Napoleon - France.

The empires seem perfectly fine to me, and I really like the campaign part where the empires have advantegas and disadvantages.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

It really isn't the same thing...the developers seem to think this game is a paragon of historical accuracy. This isn't the case...calling Austro-Hungary Austria is like calling Great Britain England or Prussia Germany...it's simply incorrect. Austria was a country within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
User avatar
TAFNsick
TAFN Staff
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:16 am
Location: the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by TAFNsick »

At first Austria was represented as Austro-Hungary in the game. On the Eidos forums there has been some discussion that it had to be Austria instead, and those people where right; it's Austria.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

No, it really isn't.
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

Firstly , If you did other empires like that you would have to be able to play America , a massive power at the time. And Austrian troops were weak they got hammered in lots of battles. They had some of the weakest line infantary in Europe.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

Les The Lionheart wrote:Firstly , If you did other empires like that you would have to be able to play America , a massive power at the time. And Austrian troops were weak they got hammered in lots of battles. They had some of the weakest line infantary in Europe.
America? America was not powerful at the time. It was defeated by Britain in the war of 1812 while Britain was fighting several other nations, that alone demonstrates its relative weakness.

I am also a Napoleonic Historian and Austro-Hungary had very good line infantry, it was just that certain ethnic groups were disorderly because the Austro-hungarian emperors were despotic. Hungarian and Austrian troops were well-equipped and well-led, and they didn't perform too badly at all if one considers the political problems facing the Empire and its difficult geographic positon. britain may have had the best standard infantry and navy, but it was a tiny army and it had awful cavalry-british cavalry is well known for having been one for 'dash' rather than good sense. Cossacks and Austro-hungarian horsemen were infinetly superior, but the infantry was not as strong. It seems to me the game has overlooked Austro-hungary's strengths rather unfairly.
jrdrums
Lieutenant
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by jrdrums »

America? America was not powerful at the time. It was defeated by Britain in the war of 1812 while Britain was fighting several other nations, that alone demonstrates its relative weakness.

Holy crap :shock:! Did you just say America was defeated in the WAr of 1812, otheriwsee known as America's second war for Independace? If that is what you meant I am in utter disbelief! America may not have been the power it is today but it was something to be reconded with and Britain new it; she was defeated twice in 2 major wars. America was in no sense of the word weak. And if you truly believe that you are most definatly not a Napoleonic historian!
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

I agree with most of that but , America still had power. The Spanish and Portugese should be in the game , they fought alot in that time. Also Austria had a tendency for rashness with their Infantary , Like at Austrolitz when Napoleon destoryed the allied armies of Russia and Austria. Also the cossacks were known for rashness , part of their culture was just charging. Like at Balaclava. And I would say Austria are not as good as they should be , but they were not that impressive.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

jrdrums wrote:America? America was not powerful at the time. It was defeated by Britain in the war of 1812 while Britain was fighting several other nations, that alone demonstrates its relative weakness.

Holy crap :shock:! Did you just say America was defeated in the WAr of 1812, otheriwsee known as America's second war for Independace? If that is what you meant I am in utter disbelief! America may not have been the power it is today but it was something to be reconded with and Britain new it; she was defeated twice in 2 major wars. America was in no sense of the word weak. And if you truly believe that you are most definatly not a Napoleonic historian!
Erm, America was defeated in the War of 1812. Taught in American schools as the 'Second War of Independence'. American Casualties were higher, America lost more battles- the Capital was threatened, and Canada was saved. To me, and anyone with half a brain, that's a British victory.
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

Yes it was in both wars of independence they lost most battles. Yorktown was the only major battle they won in the first war of independence. Althought their navy won alot eventually the British reigned supreme. And they were fighting lots of nations at the same time.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

jrdrums wrote:Actually,.... no! The war of 1812 may not have accomplished anything Americans wanted it to, but it did stop the British AGAIN. And in the Revolutionary War, you may not know this but America won and beat the British back, against all odds. I find that the British just liek to think of it as a flook and that it really never happened, but whatever.

We beat the British, which mean we won. Isn't that commone sense? And don't give me that excuse that they wer fighting many other nations. Who else were they fighting at this time? And if they were fighting more people than that is there stupidity with planning!

Good Lord I am still getting over the shock of hearing that America lost those wars. I all this time I thought we were our own nation. Silly me!
You are your own nation, but America was lucky that pressure from EUropean opponents drew Britain away otherwise D.C would most definetly have been captured. Against all Odds? 100,000 vs 5600 at the beginning of the revolutionary war with Continental Support. The Americans did not beat the British in 1812, and the aggression of other countries is not 'stupid' it is diplomatically unfortunate. Luckily, Britain trounced those other countries and London was the capital of histories largest empire and the proportionally wealthiest and most powerful body of all time. America lost the War of 1812, deal with it.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

jrdrums wrote:Americans were the smart ones; they left Britain as soon as they could. The only thing criminal about them was that they didn't do it sooner.

And we may have outnembered Britain (which I'm not sure is true) but Britain boasted being the strongest military anywhere; prooved them wrong.

You may have had the largest empire, but it sure wasn't the best. You had riots and revolts in almost all of your colonies. No one wanted to be part og the self proclaiomed great empire
You've clearly had a very biased education- The Indians, Pakistanis and many African colonies begged British administrations to return after they won independence. The Empire brought peace, technology and prosperity.
User avatar
ToXiC_WoLf
Sergeant
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:22 am
Location: Southern California....ick....

Post by ToXiC_WoLf »

Ima say this, I'm a World War II guy mostly, but I love studying my ancestral homeland of Germany so I know a little about this period. America lost the War of 1812, badly, due to poor leadership and non-unity, like hippies from 'Nam almost. The navy performed well, but America would've been utterly crushed had Britain been fighting for its survival against every other European nation in the world at that time. And no, Yorktown was only the final victoy, you can't forget about King's Mountain, Cowpens, and Saratoga, with a few others. America lost the smaller battles in the war for independence, but when it REALLY counted, the yankee ingeunity pulled through, like the invention of the sniper at Kings Mountain.
"War is the continuation of politics through other means"~ Karl von Clausewitz

"für die deutsche Ehre"~ Alt Kameraden

Join the MinuteMen, Stop Illegal Immigration!!! Save America from Socialism!!!!!!
jrdrums
Lieutenant
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by jrdrums »

^^Same here, I'm a WWII kinda guy. And German history too! Gotta stick with the Germans.

Those places may have wanted the Brits to come back but Britain couldn't retain them anymore.

The war of 1812 may have been a "lose" military wise but politically it was the first victory to show the world that Britain, the most powerful nation at that time, could be beaten by what they called "rebels". It was a huge victory in that sense, and that is all we needed. Because if it was a lose for America, it was just a big of loss to Britain, maybe bigger because we shattered their ego.(which was as large as their empire)
User avatar
Officerpuppy
IG Staff
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Post by Officerpuppy »

Just a random thought...............after the American civil war and up untill the first world war.

When did the rules of war/formality really change? Yes I know it was mostly the technology but that couldnt of been the sole reason. From commanders meeting on the field peacefully, all these rules and gentelmenly conduct, to just plain carnage, hole digging, and throwing the rule book out the window.

Maybe us as humans became more ruthless. I sincerly doubt a marine unit in Iraq will walk across a street and have a cup of tea with the same insurgients they will fight in a few minutes. Or a member of the IRA sit down with an English captain for a list of grivances. Or a member of Hezbolla send a letter to a few Palistinians on the time and place of a fight and look forward to hear from them if they accept those terms.
User avatar
Hurricane
Sergeant
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:46 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Hurricane »

The changes started with Bicmarck. In 1880-1890 I think. Maybe in the war between Napoleon the 3 and Bicmarck.
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness-Aristotle
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

We have a lot of ego , so what we can we were the best.But i know what you mean but that was left in ww1 the football Christmas game in no mans land. So some of it stayed but now alas it has gone.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
User avatar
ToXiC_WoLf
Sergeant
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:22 am
Location: Southern California....ick....

Post by ToXiC_WoLf »

Technology. The first Battle of Manassas the Yankees lined up in rows and rebel shooters picked them apart from behind obstructions, inflicting serious losses with the new rifled barrels in their weapons, causing both sides to change tactics, and causing the beginning of the times of change that led to the tactics of WWI, etc. Basically that's how it started.
"War is the continuation of politics through other means"~ Karl von Clausewitz

"für die deutsche Ehre"~ Alt Kameraden

Join the MinuteMen, Stop Illegal Immigration!!! Save America from Socialism!!!!!!
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

That was not new, the tatctic was but rifled barrels wre used by riflemen in the Napoleonic wars.It was a Yanke invention though.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

ToXiC_WoLf wrote:Technology. The first Battle of Manassas the Yankees lined up in rows and rebel shooters picked them apart from behind obstructions, inflicting serious losses with the new rifled barrels in their weapons, causing both sides to change tactics, and causing the beginning of the times of change that led to the tactics of WWI, etc. Basically that's how it started.
It's interesting that American troops didn't change their tactics in between the civil war and World War One, they lost something like 60% of their men in the first battle they fought because they marched into machine gun posts in column formation.

Anyway, the rifled barrel was a European invention...first used en mass by British Greenjackets and Austrian Jagers.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

Les The Lionheart wrote:That was not new, the tatctic was but rifled barrels wre used by riflemen in the Napoleonic wars.It was a Yanke invention though.
Incorrect, it was a European invention.
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

ToXiC_WoLf wrote:Technology. The first Battle of Manassas the Yankees lined up in rows and rebel shooters picked them apart from behind obstructions, inflicting serious losses with the new rifled barrels in their weapons, causing both sides to change tactics, and causing the beginning of the times of change that led to the tactics of WWI, etc. Basically that's how it started.
Many historians argue that it was the American Civil War and the Boer War that set the ball rolling on the change in tactics. Britain's military development was streets ahead and Germany caught up...but many other countries never did. France dressed their men in bright burgundy for the first few years. Austro-hungary's reliance on cavalry continued, but it wasn'st so sorely felt because Italy and Russia had made even fewer military advancements.
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

O right , I thought it was an American invention, thankyou for setting me straight. The English riflemen made the first camoflauge , the grasshoppers as they were widely known.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
Lt.Phoenix
Soldier
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:37 pm

Post by Lt.Phoenix »

ArchdukeMagyar wrote:
Les The Lionheart wrote:Firstly , If you did other empires like that you would have to be able to play America , a massive power at the time. And Austrian troops were weak they got hammered in lots of battles. They had some of the weakest line infantary in Europe.
America? America was not powerful at the time. It was defeated by Britain in the war of 1812 while Britain was fighting several other nations, that alone demonstrates its relative weakness.

I am also a Napoleonic Historian and Austro-Hungary had very good line infantry, it was just that certain ethnic groups were disorderly because the Austro-hungarian emperors were despotic. Hungarian and Austrian troops were well-equipped and well-led, and they didn't perform too badly at all if one considers the political problems facing the Empire and its difficult geographic positon. britain may have had the best standard infantry and navy, but it was a tiny army and it had awful cavalry-british cavalry is well known for having been one for 'dash' rather than good sense. Cossacks and Austro-hungarian horsemen were infinetly superior, but the infantry was not as strong. It seems to me the game has overlooked Austro-hungary's strengths rather unfairly.
Um, no, America fought CANADA and lost. We even bruned down their white house. they did win a battle after the peace treaty was signed though.
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

Firstly , if the cossacks were superior how did the heavy brigade at balaclava defeat more than their number of cossack horsemen. Cossacks had no displine at all , at Balaclava they charged infantary in squares.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
User avatar
ToXiC_WoLf
Sergeant
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:22 am
Location: Southern California....ick....

Post by ToXiC_WoLf »

I never said Americans invented rifled barrels, but that was the first time in history whole armies of men were equipped with rifled weapons and went head-to-head. The yankees at Manassas even had white belts over there shoulders like the English in that X-shape, I have no idea what it's called. Many bodies were found with holes right in the middle of the X, showing that X's and lines were impractical, even though on many occasions both sides would charge in lines, like poor ol' Pickett at Gettysburg....
"War is the continuation of politics through other means"~ Karl von Clausewitz

"für die deutsche Ehre"~ Alt Kameraden

Join the MinuteMen, Stop Illegal Immigration!!! Save America from Socialism!!!!!!
ArchdukeMagyar
Sergeant
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:25 pm

Post by ArchdukeMagyar »

Lt.Phoenix wrote:
ArchdukeMagyar wrote:
Les The Lionheart wrote:Firstly , If you did other empires like that you would have to be able to play America , a massive power at the time. And Austrian troops were weak they got hammered in lots of battles. They had some of the weakest line infantary in Europe.
America? America was not powerful at the time. It was defeated by Britain in the war of 1812 while Britain was fighting several other nations, that alone demonstrates its relative weakness.

I am also a Napoleonic Historian and Austro-Hungary had very good line infantry, it was just that certain ethnic groups were disorderly because the Austro-hungarian emperors were despotic. Hungarian and Austrian troops were well-equipped and well-led, and they didn't perform too badly at all if one considers the political problems facing the Empire and its difficult geographic positon. britain may have had the best standard infantry and navy, but it was a tiny army and it had awful cavalry-british cavalry is well known for having been one for 'dash' rather than good sense. Cossacks and Austro-hungarian horsemen were infinetly superior, but the infantry was not as strong. It seems to me the game has overlooked Austro-hungary's strengths rather unfairly.
Um, no, America fought CANADA and lost. We even bruned down their white house. they did win a battle after the peace treaty was signed though.
Sorry to break it to you, but the vast majority of Soldiers were British and British Redcoats burned down the whitehouse.
Lt.Phoenix
Soldier
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:37 pm

Post by Lt.Phoenix »

Again, the British Regiments that fought there were part of the British NorthWest Military, or the Canadian Military. Even though Canada was not seperate from Britian yet, it was Canadian soldiers that fought for Canada, not Britain soldiers. There was help from the British navy, but they didn't burn down the White house, although they did escort them, and they never took place in the major battles. The unit that burned down the whitehouse was a Candian Metis guerilla unit. They also burned down many bases on their way. Yes, Canada did recive help from Britain in the War of 1812, mainly so that they could silence America, which they did, but they didn't Fight for Canada, Canadians did.

http://www.coolcanuckaward.ca/i_am_canadian.htm

;)
User avatar
Les The Lionheart
Captain
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Les The Lionheart »

It is the same with lots of battles like that. English troops were present and fought hard but other countries actually did it. But I would still say that the burning of the whitehouse was a Brit victory. With Canadian help. Because Canada was British and ruled by Brits.
God is not on the side of the big battalions but of the best shots.
A hero is a man that is afraid to run away.

Come on lads tis to glory we sail because englands glorious banner shalt always prevail.

A hero is a man afraid to run away.
Post Reply