Imperial Glory (PC)

[Legio XII]

Agreed. This is one of the worst games I have played in.......ever. Has Pyro never heard of beta testing? Or getting any kind feedback before sending a product to market? I mean, really, how stupid can one get?

[Darth Ravenous]

Pretty stupid but as far as ALL games go their are worse games out there.

[Yojimbo]

This is a very decent review that certainly made up my mind about it. THanks!!

Q.

EDIT: ok man I don't want to discredit you BUT: IGN gives the game a 8.5 (wtf?!): here is their closing comment:

Closing Comments
It's hard not to compare this game to those in the Total War series. Fortunately, the comparison is pretty favorable. Though the battles themselves aren't quite as easy to manage, the added strategic elements and highly detailed environments should definitely have Creative Assembly sitting up and taking notice. As I said before, though the game offers up many pleasures, it's not for the faint of heart. The campaign's tedious start is a significant obstacle to gamers who want to "get to the good stuff" without going through the motions of developing a massive resource base and drafting an army from scratch.

Dude its IGN. they are crap. what possible reason have I got to lie? I'm not getting paid for this.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

While IGN has a point about the maps being more detailed however there is only 1 map/province.
So with a limited number of provinces it enables them to provide with more detailed maps.
However TW has as far as I know never done that.
In STW and MTW the maps were random generated based on type of terrain so even if you fought in the same province you would get a different map. This does not happen in IG, same province same map.
And RTW and M2TW and ETW the map has expanded and the map is now determined by where you stand.
Consider the size of the map, no way can CA provide maps with that much detail even tho it is getting better judging from screenshots of ETW.
So it's unfair of IGN to compare since the scope of IG is really quite small compared to TW.

[Darth Ravenous]

While IGN has a point about the maps being more detailed however there is only 1 map/province.
So with a limited number of provinces it enables them to provide with more detailed maps.
However TW has as far as I know never done that.
In STW and MTW the maps were random generated based on type of terrain so even if you fought in the same province you would get a different map. This does not happen in IG, same province same map.
And RTW and M2TW and ETW the map has expanded and the map is now determined by where you stand.
Consider the size of the map, no way can CA provide maps with that much detail even tho it is getting better judging from screenshots of ETW.
So it's unfair of IGN to compare since the scope of IG is really quite small compared to TW.

You said it.

[Turtules]

I second that.

[Hunter Makoy]

bought the game for about $10 a couple of years ago solely for the naval battles, and a bit for the time frame, but mainly for the naval battles. almost everything about the game sucked horribly. although the diplomacy "system" was very nice. (notice i said the system was good, its AI implementation was not)

IG insures Empires will be an awesome game no matter what. because whats your alternative to ETW? Imperial ing Glory.

[MADMAN066]

Good thing is, it made E:TW look really dam good.

I couldn't believe how bad this game was, honestly, just, why would someone look at this and think "We should get in on this Harry".

Did no one see the result of all the flawed thinking and go "If you release this, i'm resigning"

[Kuhndog]

So was I the only one that actually liked the game?

Keep in mind I was a kid that was not worried about historical accuracy when I played it.

[Scipio Afracanis]

I played it when it came out(2006 or 2007) and it was ok.

Liked the cannons blowing troops up, and liked units being able to use surrounding obstructions for cover.(Rocks,buidlings,groves ect...)

Also it was kind of cool to see red coat infan marching to a hill to take it over.

The game had its moments, but the game breakers, were no speed up time button on battles and militia..... @#$%ing MILITIA!
Never tried the ship battles,just build more and auto.
I did like the missions to gain bonus this or that, each nation gunning for them early game was fun.
Liked the Ottoman units, camel riders with muskets.

All in all, a fun game for maybe a day or 2 when it came out. If you could look past alot and sort of enjoy it for what it was. A below average game with a few bright spots.

[Admiral Van Tromp]

I actually liked the game. Mainly because I couldn't play the newest Total War games because my computer was slow...

[Diggiz]

I play this game and for me very good. This game is resemble Total War games. So I love this game.

[|Sith| Max]

oo a 2008 necroposting! i remember this game. it was... reasonable for its time, nothing close to Rome, then again few RTS's where u cant make new units on the field of battle match rome, not even later TW releases. controls were sluggish but the game itself was enjoyable

[Fireright]

Wasn't this the game with the bugged tutorial? couldn't click on some Russian commander because he didnt exist. Not exactly an impressive start to the game. Binned.

[debux]

This game could have been great to some before ETW... now it's crap. I haven't even reinstalled it after getting a new PC and trying out ETW. Just no way to compare it, even with the countless bugs of ETW and all those annoyances it brought.

It had some nice things... those predetermined unit formations (column, line and square) are an interesting variant of the modifiable unit formations in TW games, but as far as I recall not that well. Column formation should have gained speed and morale (although I only remember morale playing part in the battle of the piramids and it was scripted), between other minor bonuses.

The campaign was interesting, the whole layout of stuff and graphic-wise was in a way nice. I personally liked that thing of officers leading a limited amount of officers.

The tech tree was a good addition too. I don't think any TW game had it before. Quests were also interesting, although completely fictional and unhistorical.

Naval battles (no matter how much they sucked, they were the first TW resemblance game with it I think)

All the rest sucked. Battle system, AI, morale, field, physics, and a countless others, without counting all the other failed features on the campaign map (why on hell can't I build on the great powers homeland!?) Luckily I didn't buy it, nor did I get so many bugs or CTD as many here say.
This game got some things right and others wrong. Mostly wrong, but I wouldn't mind having some of the features IG had in ETW or NTW

[rageallday]

This game was alot more fun once I modified it for larger units, and realistic musket Accuracy percentages, Also removed any bonus armor that units may have had, and increased the range on the artillery pieces. alot of fun now, before battles were too small, now I can have battles upwards of 10,000 men

hand over your files in a winrar attachment for musket accuracy,good sir!

[debux]

hand over your files in a winrar attachment for musket accuracy,good sir!

I second that, it would give me a good reason to install the game.

[saxdude]

tough luck as the post was 2 years ago.

[ALFAJI]

- i wanted to play this game from 2006 but in the fall of 2008 finally i play it in my friend pc busece i had a labtop and that game needs a better one than i have so my reviow to it

-the maps of the game was marvelous to its time 2005 and better than ntw and thats in 2009

-few factions in the game

-bad control in the battle


so i give it 5-10

[Ahlerich]

BAI and CAI was better then total war though. still a crap game..