News
Request to CA: please, fix faces' bug (clone armies)
I'd like to ask CA to fix the following bug. Soldiers in game got only 2 different face skins even on the highest details. I'm pretty sure that is a bug because I've checked the .dds textures files and every unit has 4 different face skins. Unfortunately the game uses only first and second face. Here are the examples:
Please notice that we can see in game only faces #1 and #2 in the game whereas number 3 and 4 are only in the textures files. The game engine doesn't allow regiments to use 4 different faces. Because of this bug, many people call ETW "a clone army". It also takes away much of diversification from ETW comparing to MTW2 which had 6 different faces per regiment. Please, fix it in the next patch.
Regards,
KLA
:)
Please notice that we can see in game only faces #1 and #2 in the game whereas number 3 and 4 are only in the textures files. The game engine doesn't allow regiments to use 4 different faces. Because of this bug, many people call ETW "a clone army". It also takes away much of diversification from ETW comparing to MTW2 which had 6 different faces per regiment. Please, fix it in the next patch.
Regards,
KLA
:)
British uniforms are too dark. Please make lighter red uniforms
British uniforms are too dark. Please make lighter red uniforms
SOURCES:
IN GAME:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/n...html?id=235615
SOURCES:
IN GAME:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/n...html?id=235615
How good Napoleon TW will be?
A little bit in the trend of the Parliament (as of late), here is (yet another) poll. However i ask the kind tolerance of my fellow orgahs for this choice, as it is the first i ever inititated, and in any case i sincerely find the subject matter of interest:
How good you estimate Napoleon will be?
Please if able and willing give out your reasons for your choice.
And to start: I think Napoleon will be bad because CA still does not think that their fanbase can punish them in the sales department for the low quality games they deliver for the last (almost) 5 years.
It follows that they might play with the same cards they have done in the recent past. It is quite possible actually that such an estimation might be correct judging by the amount of support Empire gets in other forums.
:bow:
How good you estimate Napoleon will be?
Please if able and willing give out your reasons for your choice.
And to start: I think Napoleon will be bad because CA still does not think that their fanbase can punish them in the sales department for the low quality games they deliver for the last (almost) 5 years.
It follows that they might play with the same cards they have done in the recent past. It is quite possible actually that such an estimation might be correct judging by the amount of support Empire gets in other forums.
:bow:
Happy with 1.5?
Are you satisfied with the 1.5 patch?
Lately I have experienced some late game CTDs.
There are more bugs that I won't mention but there are some I would like to talk about.
Warpath has a serious bug because Native American Factions can't un-exempt taxes when a region is captured.
I am not sure if it is a bug or a feature, but the Naval Units seem a bit mixed up.
The 4th rats now have more fire power listed on the unit card than a 3rd rate.
I don't believe they do in combat, but I could be wrong.
Not that history has anything to do with the game but 4th rates were crap ships to start with. Up to this point they have never out gunned 3rd rates, is it a mistake or part of the naval balancing?
It is just my opinion but I think it could use a little work yet. Maybe that will come with the Multiplayer Campaign or NTW but some things do need fixed up a bit.
How about everyone else. Are you happy with the game as it is?
Lately I have experienced some late game CTDs.
There are more bugs that I won't mention but there are some I would like to talk about.
Warpath has a serious bug because Native American Factions can't un-exempt taxes when a region is captured.
I am not sure if it is a bug or a feature, but the Naval Units seem a bit mixed up.
The 4th rats now have more fire power listed on the unit card than a 3rd rate.
I don't believe they do in combat, but I could be wrong.
Not that history has anything to do with the game but 4th rates were crap ships to start with. Up to this point they have never out gunned 3rd rates, is it a mistake or part of the naval balancing?
It is just my opinion but I think it could use a little work yet. Maybe that will come with the Multiplayer Campaign or NTW but some things do need fixed up a bit.
How about everyone else. Are you happy with the game as it is?
sale cheap jordan shoes
welcome to our website: www cheap-voguenike com ,We hope become your reliable shoes supplier in China. Authentic Shoes with original box,we insists that " Customer the highest, Quality first ". Our products include Air Jordan series,Mix jordan series, Air max Shoes series, Air force one, Nike shox series shoes, Adidas Shoes, Timberland Shoes, Prada Shoes,Gucci shoes,puma shoes,lv bags, and Bape, Lacoste,Polo T-shirt,Evisu hoody,Evisu coat etc. we are looking forward to building sincere and long-term business relationships with you.
Can't Retreat From Sieges?
I notice that when a relieving force arrives, I am unable to retreat my army from a siege. I may be imagining things, but I swear I remember being able to do that in earlier versions.
Little Moments of your Evil (Many images could be included)
Of course, ETW can at times be particularly annoying game. The AI rarely accepts peace, those European Reform units are quite high-up the tech tree, they all make you want to in-act revenge.
And this is often done because eventually, we (the player) will win.
During an Imperial Splendour campaign as Morocco, I was inevitably locked into a near-eternal state of war with Spain. However a few turns prior to this screenshot I seized the oppertunity to take there capital, at first I offered the Spainish peace, along with return of Spain and 2000 gold. Predictably the AI said "I am insulted! *spits* your fantastic cut-price deal is not elaborate for us! We would like you to give Tunis and Algiers, declare war on the Mughals and Marathra, pay 10,000 gold a turn for 50 turns and become a protectorate"
My response... well we all done it in MTW:VI... I repeated something not dissimilar just here:
The Demolishing
The Impovershering
I will see the benefits/etc later in the campaign, of course, the constant swarms of line infantry, guards, falcon cannons will certainly be reduced for a VERY long time, and there econmany is likely to be wrecked after this. I am likely to give it back after a couple of turns... too Britain!
So, anyone wish to match my levels of malice? :sneaky:
And this is often done because eventually, we (the player) will win.
During an Imperial Splendour campaign as Morocco, I was inevitably locked into a near-eternal state of war with Spain. However a few turns prior to this screenshot I seized the oppertunity to take there capital, at first I offered the Spainish peace, along with return of Spain and 2000 gold. Predictably the AI said "I am insulted! *spits* your fantastic cut-price deal is not elaborate for us! We would like you to give Tunis and Algiers, declare war on the Mughals and Marathra, pay 10,000 gold a turn for 50 turns and become a protectorate"
My response... well we all done it in MTW:VI... I repeated something not dissimilar just here:
The Demolishing
The Impovershering
I will see the benefits/etc later in the campaign, of course, the constant swarms of line infantry, guards, falcon cannons will certainly be reduced for a VERY long time, and there econmany is likely to be wrecked after this. I am likely to give it back after a couple of turns... too Britain!
So, anyone wish to match my levels of malice? :sneaky:
Battle AI Blog
Tuesday Nov 10, 2009
Battle AI - By Mike Simpson
Just before the end of Empire the lead Battle AI programmer left CA to return to his family up north.
Unfortunately, thanks to Mr Wilberforce’s efforts 200 years ago we couldn’t stop him. It left us with a battle AI, which at that stage, struggled to beat good players in a fair fight, and was pretty much at the mercy of great players, even with a level of handicap (I call it cheating) that is all too obvious.
Since then we’ve had our most talented programmers pick up where the deserter left off, but becoming the master of a chunk of code that took almost three years to write is not an instant thing. In the updates so far we’ve got rid of some of the worst behaviours that are close to the surface, and have started to tackle deeper issues like unstable decision loops that cause the AI to mill around rather than hold its line and fire. We’re also starting to add new behaviours, for example taking better advantage of hilly terrain. These improvements take the code further than we’ve been able before and will be there for Napoleon but we’re not sure yet whether we’ll be able to reverse them back in to Empire in a future update - the code has moved on. If we can we will.
Our overall aim with the improvements is first to get rid of any erratic behaviour, second to improve general performance to the point where the obvious handicaps can be removed, and then to add a greater variety of ’smart’ behaviours. None of these have a fixed finish line - it’s a process of continual improvement, and each game will get AI better than the last one. Including Napoleon.
Progress is frustratingly slow but thankfully rewriting the Rome: Total War codebase has left us with a clean codebase that is easier to work on, and an architecture that has way more potential than Rome’s. The main difference is the shift to a goal oriented planning system rather than a static system that has no long term plans. This has yet to fully pay off. But it will. When it does I’ll talk about it again.
Battle AI is not rocket science - its way, way harder than that. It’s so difficult that very few strategy games attempt it. Most use simple scripts of canned behaviour that fire when you bump in to them, and very simple swarming behaviours. They’re limited, and are “gamey” rather than real world. What I mean by that is that the tactics you use to beat them are something that you have to learn for each game or sometimes each scenario/level, and bear no relation to reality. What we strive for is a game where real world tactics actually work. It’s not the easiest path to take, but it is the most rewarding.
If you’re a genius C++ programmer, you understand exactly how difficult this problem is, but still think it’s the most interesting code problem in the world, apply for a job. We’ll find space for you.
Posted by Mark in CA Updates on 2:42:07PM Nov 10, 2009
http://blogs.sega.com/totalwar/2009/...-mike-simpson/
Battle AI - By Mike Simpson
Just before the end of Empire the lead Battle AI programmer left CA to return to his family up north.
Unfortunately, thanks to Mr Wilberforce’s efforts 200 years ago we couldn’t stop him. It left us with a battle AI, which at that stage, struggled to beat good players in a fair fight, and was pretty much at the mercy of great players, even with a level of handicap (I call it cheating) that is all too obvious.
Since then we’ve had our most talented programmers pick up where the deserter left off, but becoming the master of a chunk of code that took almost three years to write is not an instant thing. In the updates so far we’ve got rid of some of the worst behaviours that are close to the surface, and have started to tackle deeper issues like unstable decision loops that cause the AI to mill around rather than hold its line and fire. We’re also starting to add new behaviours, for example taking better advantage of hilly terrain. These improvements take the code further than we’ve been able before and will be there for Napoleon but we’re not sure yet whether we’ll be able to reverse them back in to Empire in a future update - the code has moved on. If we can we will.
Our overall aim with the improvements is first to get rid of any erratic behaviour, second to improve general performance to the point where the obvious handicaps can be removed, and then to add a greater variety of ’smart’ behaviours. None of these have a fixed finish line - it’s a process of continual improvement, and each game will get AI better than the last one. Including Napoleon.
Progress is frustratingly slow but thankfully rewriting the Rome: Total War codebase has left us with a clean codebase that is easier to work on, and an architecture that has way more potential than Rome’s. The main difference is the shift to a goal oriented planning system rather than a static system that has no long term plans. This has yet to fully pay off. But it will. When it does I’ll talk about it again.
Battle AI is not rocket science - its way, way harder than that. It’s so difficult that very few strategy games attempt it. Most use simple scripts of canned behaviour that fire when you bump in to them, and very simple swarming behaviours. They’re limited, and are “gamey” rather than real world. What I mean by that is that the tactics you use to beat them are something that you have to learn for each game or sometimes each scenario/level, and bear no relation to reality. What we strive for is a game where real world tactics actually work. It’s not the easiest path to take, but it is the most rewarding.
If you’re a genius C++ programmer, you understand exactly how difficult this problem is, but still think it’s the most interesting code problem in the world, apply for a job. We’ll find space for you.
Posted by Mark in CA Updates on 2:42:07PM Nov 10, 2009
http://blogs.sega.com/totalwar/2009/...-mike-simpson/
Battlefield AI - Actually Accurate?
I've just started playing ETW, after a long hiatus from serious TW playing. Ever since I've I started playing MTW on an almost daily basis, when it first came out, people have complained about battlefield AI. I played MTW non-stop for a couple of years and got tired of beating massed attacks of infantry units, mounted archers, a handful of knights, and the inevitable hobilars.
I spent most of Saturday running single player land battles. I haven't tried naval battles yet. A couple of times I peaked at my beloved and well worn copy of David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, which includes a great primer on 18th century warfare as a background to Napoleon's campaigns. After a good 10 hours, I came to a shocking conclusion that I want to run by you my Org Brethren: The ETW Battlefield AI Is Pretty Accurate
1. Think about the time that we come into the battle. The armies are in each others line of sight. The field has been set, and they have fallen out of their marching columns into preparatory battle ranks. Historically at this point, moving to the flank would be counterproductive, because both sides can see each other. You lose the element of surprise. The majority of the marching and counter-marching occurred before the armies were in sight of one another.
2. You can get flanked by the AI. I haven't played a campaign out in ETW yet, but it happened to me in MTW2. When the enemy has a reserve army that appears on the map, they are usually to your flank or rear. It even goes so far as to sort of depend on where the army icon is relative to yours on the campaign map.
3. Again with the history, there was not a lot of command and control between armies. Think about the end of Waterloo when both Wellington and Napoleon were straining to see if the incoming army's coats were Prussian Blue of French Blue. Grouchy and Blucher were in striking distance, but no one really knew where. Chandler also talks a great deal about how Napoleon used short internal lines of communication to move armies from one area of concentration to the other, and that he told all of his generals "march to the sound of the guns." When you look at a Napoleonic battle, the initial forces fought head on, and then the battle would often go to the army with the most reserves or whose allies came up first.
3. Most battles - particularly the ones that aren't as historically recognized - were basically slug fests. Two armies would meet, but they didn't have other armies marching to their relief or overwhelming reserves. The army with the better training, the more artillery, and the higher morale could keep more troops in reserve, until the very last minute when the fresh troops would be unleashed to drive home the final attack. Until Marshall Davout arrived at Austerlitz - thus completing Napoleon's "revolving door" battle plan - the two sides were almost entirely fighting face to face.
4. Even in the 18th century, most generals were still a little hazy on how to turn a flank. You have your Suvorovs, your Fredericks, and your Napoleons, but most generals were pretty workmanlike in their approach to warfare, either from ignorance or lack of confidence in their command and control. It takes a lot of skill to pre-arrange for a part of your line to start flanking during the heat of battle. You couldn't make last minute decisions once the battle was joined, because it was very hard to move messages.
So, no the AI isn't perfect because it doesn't seem to produce Frederick the Great, but it does a better job than I used to give it credit for. I'll be curious to see what happens when I start getting deeper into a ETW campaign and whether the AI is able to successfully gang up on my armies and successfully replicate the march/counter march elements of an 18th century campaign.
I spent most of Saturday running single player land battles. I haven't tried naval battles yet. A couple of times I peaked at my beloved and well worn copy of David Chandler's The Campaigns of Napoleon, which includes a great primer on 18th century warfare as a background to Napoleon's campaigns. After a good 10 hours, I came to a shocking conclusion that I want to run by you my Org Brethren: The ETW Battlefield AI Is Pretty Accurate
1. Think about the time that we come into the battle. The armies are in each others line of sight. The field has been set, and they have fallen out of their marching columns into preparatory battle ranks. Historically at this point, moving to the flank would be counterproductive, because both sides can see each other. You lose the element of surprise. The majority of the marching and counter-marching occurred before the armies were in sight of one another.
2. You can get flanked by the AI. I haven't played a campaign out in ETW yet, but it happened to me in MTW2. When the enemy has a reserve army that appears on the map, they are usually to your flank or rear. It even goes so far as to sort of depend on where the army icon is relative to yours on the campaign map.
3. Again with the history, there was not a lot of command and control between armies. Think about the end of Waterloo when both Wellington and Napoleon were straining to see if the incoming army's coats were Prussian Blue of French Blue. Grouchy and Blucher were in striking distance, but no one really knew where. Chandler also talks a great deal about how Napoleon used short internal lines of communication to move armies from one area of concentration to the other, and that he told all of his generals "march to the sound of the guns." When you look at a Napoleonic battle, the initial forces fought head on, and then the battle would often go to the army with the most reserves or whose allies came up first.
3. Most battles - particularly the ones that aren't as historically recognized - were basically slug fests. Two armies would meet, but they didn't have other armies marching to their relief or overwhelming reserves. The army with the better training, the more artillery, and the higher morale could keep more troops in reserve, until the very last minute when the fresh troops would be unleashed to drive home the final attack. Until Marshall Davout arrived at Austerlitz - thus completing Napoleon's "revolving door" battle plan - the two sides were almost entirely fighting face to face.
4. Even in the 18th century, most generals were still a little hazy on how to turn a flank. You have your Suvorovs, your Fredericks, and your Napoleons, but most generals were pretty workmanlike in their approach to warfare, either from ignorance or lack of confidence in their command and control. It takes a lot of skill to pre-arrange for a part of your line to start flanking during the heat of battle. You couldn't make last minute decisions once the battle was joined, because it was very hard to move messages.
So, no the AI isn't perfect because it doesn't seem to produce Frederick the Great, but it does a better job than I used to give it credit for. I'll be curious to see what happens when I start getting deeper into a ETW campaign and whether the AI is able to successfully gang up on my armies and successfully replicate the march/counter march elements of an 18th century campaign.
Grand Campaign 1.0 to 1.5
Well I thought I would throw this out here for what its worth. This is no guide on how to play. I jumped into this game like most with the pre-release and the DLC trying to get the full game experience but was disappointed like most. I just completed the Grand Campaign as the Austrians. I started this the game after the RTI and the 1.2 patch came out. I just wanted to explore the map and see what the game would do. I stopped and started because of the information I was reading in the Parliament. There are a lot of great players and I respect the opinions of those that took the time to post about the game. I am not one for detail and appreciated the ability of members picking up on the game mechanics and sharing their findings. I am also not one that can use a body guard unit and take out an AI army I usually play a rockem sockem style till the last man standing. Usually its me and not the AI!
As I mentioned I played the RTI and had a very stable platform the only issue was the merge bug in the settlement that gave me my only CTD. I continued with the save again after 1.3 to see the changes again a couple turns but I wasnt seeing much of what was being posted about the diplomacy DoW was an issue with members. I really got back in to it with the 1.4 then 1.5 updates. I am putting out my observations for anyone still sitting on the fence about the game.
I must add there are issues especially the Battle AI and some of the Campaign AI but it did a lot of neat stuff too.
Diplomacy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: First the diplomacy is off trying to get agreements and can be annoying trying to complete a simple agreement and eventually end up not getting any agreement. as the game progress little diplomacy was initiated by me.
The main issue mentioned was the DoW, it was not in the game from the AI. I started my war with Venice and Genoa and was left alone by everyone else. Prussia and Poland fought it out till Prussias demise in 1790. I was watching the diplomacy rating and could see numbers go down. Eventually I was at war with Spain because of land issues in Italy. It started as a Succession War and France was the ally. Unfortunately a peace could not be obtained I did with France for a few turns but they eventually jumped back into it. They were the 4 nations I remained at war with for the game. The Ottomans became allies and the Martha Confederacy ran away with the prestige points. Though eventually we became neighbours I guess I could have gone after them for victory conditions. Overall I was satisfied with DoW being reasonable and some of the diplomacy.It would be nice to utlize the minor nation to aid in your cause but them seemed to independent and really did little in the game.
Economy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: Now having the automatic patches the game save worked and were not interfered with but I dont know if that hampered with some of the economic bugs. It could be the faction I was using but I was following the basic guide to build the economy.
This was a huge issue in my game for me. I could never generate more than 8000 a turn I did set up trade and grabbed some trade nodes but I found my cash was either, to spend it on an army or infrastructure but not both. It was a vicious cycle and I could not increase the income, in fact it was reduced when the trade routes were lost or blocked. Any military success could not be followed up because the army would be decimated and require time to rebuild. I would skip a turn just to build some cash flow and go on a spending spree.
Also with the economics the advisors telling me to improve farms in a region but they were all upgraded the highest level including the roads. To the best of my knowledge I could not create new farms. Is it possible to create new farms?? The other issue later in the game I did not have the money to upgrade industries to their full potential because of cost involved.
Battles
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: There were some interesting battles. I cant elaborate on the naval because I utilized it very little and what I did I was bad at it. I need a lot of work in naval combat. As for the land battles the AI as its issues which are well documented but there were some real nice set ups and memorable battles. The one issue and the only other CTD were defending a star fort which is a waste of money to build. I went through the battle twice half way through the first it crashed and the second attempt it crashed at the save after the victory. No more battles done in a star fort and no more were ever built in the game; there was no value.
What I did like was the naval invasions. The Venetians tried for Rome on 3 occasions forcing me to keep it guarded. I did get regions to surrender without a shot fired. Unfortunately the AI would look like it was going somewhere and then just fall apart. I gave the AI far too much credit by keeping units in areas for defenses
Conclusion
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: To end I can say that I was enjoying myself and I hope you found some of this useful if you are looking at playing. The game platform was stable there are lots of little things that should be fixed but overall the game is playable. I am the Turtle type player instead of the Blitzer. If you wait too long and the economy is not going then you will have a hole you cant climb out of to capture the required regions. I will continue to play starting another campaign and possible commit to an AAR but I it would really be nice to get the known issues cleaned up with another patch or the mod tools released for those members that can get into the game and tweak it for a far better gaming experience.
As I mentioned I played the RTI and had a very stable platform the only issue was the merge bug in the settlement that gave me my only CTD. I continued with the save again after 1.3 to see the changes again a couple turns but I wasnt seeing much of what was being posted about the diplomacy DoW was an issue with members. I really got back in to it with the 1.4 then 1.5 updates. I am putting out my observations for anyone still sitting on the fence about the game.
I must add there are issues especially the Battle AI and some of the Campaign AI but it did a lot of neat stuff too.
Diplomacy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: First the diplomacy is off trying to get agreements and can be annoying trying to complete a simple agreement and eventually end up not getting any agreement. as the game progress little diplomacy was initiated by me.
The main issue mentioned was the DoW, it was not in the game from the AI. I started my war with Venice and Genoa and was left alone by everyone else. Prussia and Poland fought it out till Prussias demise in 1790. I was watching the diplomacy rating and could see numbers go down. Eventually I was at war with Spain because of land issues in Italy. It started as a Succession War and France was the ally. Unfortunately a peace could not be obtained I did with France for a few turns but they eventually jumped back into it. They were the 4 nations I remained at war with for the game. The Ottomans became allies and the Martha Confederacy ran away with the prestige points. Though eventually we became neighbours I guess I could have gone after them for victory conditions. Overall I was satisfied with DoW being reasonable and some of the diplomacy.It would be nice to utlize the minor nation to aid in your cause but them seemed to independent and really did little in the game.
Economy
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: Now having the automatic patches the game save worked and were not interfered with but I dont know if that hampered with some of the economic bugs. It could be the faction I was using but I was following the basic guide to build the economy.
This was a huge issue in my game for me. I could never generate more than 8000 a turn I did set up trade and grabbed some trade nodes but I found my cash was either, to spend it on an army or infrastructure but not both. It was a vicious cycle and I could not increase the income, in fact it was reduced when the trade routes were lost or blocked. Any military success could not be followed up because the army would be decimated and require time to rebuild. I would skip a turn just to build some cash flow and go on a spending spree.
Also with the economics the advisors telling me to improve farms in a region but they were all upgraded the highest level including the roads. To the best of my knowledge I could not create new farms. Is it possible to create new farms?? The other issue later in the game I did not have the money to upgrade industries to their full potential because of cost involved.
Battles
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: There were some interesting battles. I cant elaborate on the naval because I utilized it very little and what I did I was bad at it. I need a lot of work in naval combat. As for the land battles the AI as its issues which are well documented but there were some real nice set ups and memorable battles. The one issue and the only other CTD were defending a star fort which is a waste of money to build. I went through the battle twice half way through the first it crashed and the second attempt it crashed at the save after the victory. No more battles done in a star fort and no more were ever built in the game; there was no value.
What I did like was the naval invasions. The Venetians tried for Rome on 3 occasions forcing me to keep it guarded. I did get regions to surrender without a shot fired. Unfortunately the AI would look like it was going somewhere and then just fall apart. I gave the AI far too much credit by keeping units in areas for defenses
Conclusion
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: To end I can say that I was enjoying myself and I hope you found some of this useful if you are looking at playing. The game platform was stable there are lots of little things that should be fixed but overall the game is playable. I am the Turtle type player instead of the Blitzer. If you wait too long and the economy is not going then you will have a hole you cant climb out of to capture the required regions. I will continue to play starting another campaign and possible commit to an AAR but I it would really be nice to get the known issues cleaned up with another patch or the mod tools released for those members that can get into the game and tweak it for a far better gaming experience.
The Update
It is no longer daily; so a new thread should be in order....
and here we are.
Quote:
7th November:
Hi guys,
I have received a lot of questions asking about the status of our Multiplayer Campaign Beta for Empire: Total War. I can confirm that the latest code went out to our Beta Group last night and we are making good progress in testing. Additionally, I can confirm that our Battle AI blog will be posted next week.
Have a great weekend,
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/53425?page=5
and here we are.
Quote:
7th November:
Hi guys,
I have received a lot of questions asking about the status of our Multiplayer Campaign Beta for Empire: Total War. I can confirm that the latest code went out to our Beta Group last night and we are making good progress in testing. Additionally, I can confirm that our Battle AI blog will be posted next week.
Have a great weekend,
Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/53425?page=5
All starting factions unlocked
Thought I may as well make this up.
Replace the startpos.esf in this directory:
\Steam\steamapps\common\empire total war\data\campaigns\main
http://www.filefront.com/14875303/startpos.esf
Most original unplayable factions have no objectives, and when you load in, no correct line of sight.
To rectify (and be able to do something) click on lists, down the bottom right, then move an army unit. That will grant you line of sight and you can play as normal.
Replace the startpos.esf in this directory:
\Steam\steamapps\common\empire total war\data\campaigns\main
http://www.filefront.com/14875303/startpos.esf
Most original unplayable factions have no objectives, and when you load in, no correct line of sight.
To rectify (and be able to do something) click on lists, down the bottom right, then move an army unit. That will grant you line of sight and you can play as normal.
New Patch?
I recently bought E:TW and it barely works, crashes often and is filled with bugs, and when it doesn't crash the AI will get suicidal and just get itself killed with being stupid, will there be a new patch (or gooood mod) or should I get a refund?
-Skull
-Skull
Napoleonic Era Films
From its early beginnings, TW has been closely linked with films; after all the TW battles are very cinematic in all TW games thus far.
Akira Kurosawa's "RAN" and "Kagemusha", provided much of inspiration and atmosphere and even gameplay elements (the unit formation behaviour that are used to this day in TW are clearly portraid in both films - units are seen arrange themselves in broader or narrower rectangular formations) and even tactics (notice in the final battle of RAN that gunners hide in the trees to create enfilade killing zones against a charging cavalry heavy force) in Shogun:TW.
Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" was crucial not only as an inspiration but in setting the tone for Rome:TW; its success also prompted CA (according to Mike Simpson in the RTW Story) to anticipate "a bit of a Rome frenzy" and decide to make the game that broke TW into the mainstream. This is also clearly shown in how CA marketed the game, and how a large part of the fanbase perceived it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59h-bPMiy4
For Medieval2:TW Ridley Scott's (again!) "Kingdom of Heaven" was central in setting the tone and being associated with the game (Saladin's depiction in the film was used in the special edition package iirc of M2TW http://img.game.co.uk/images/product...collectors.jpg).
There is a fine array of inspiring warfilms for the upcoming Napoleon TW, and although CA has undoubtedly has picked their own and incorporated them in the game, what are fan film favorites for this era?
I think that mine is a relatively unknown, although awarded and well regarded, film, that happens actually to be Ridley Scott's very first effort (up to then Scott was involved in the making of commercials that defined him as a director as anyone who has watched "Kingdom of Heaven" can attest; that movie was described by some as "a two hour long car commercial").
This is "The Duellists" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8nGgvepXCk), a film about the animosity between two cavalry officers (Hussars) in the Napoleonic Army at the height of the Naopleonic Wars, that degenerates in a series of "to the death" duells. The script is based on a Josef Conrad story.
The movie matches in the two protagonistis roles two (surprisingly) american actors; the country singer Keith Carradine as the upper class D'Hubert and the well known Harvey Keitel as the obsessive duellist lower class Feraud, who drags Carradine's character into the vortex of encounters at the edge of life and death.
Keitel at the time was finding it difficult to land roles in the US, hence the appreciation towards Scott for giving him a chance (Keitel repaid the favor by appearing in Scott's "Thelma and Luise" much later on). He plays the part he plays best: a cynical, violent obsessive character that channels his raw twisted energy in duels he picks up, essentially just to fight.
Caradine is equally adept in the role of well-brought-up, reliable and conscientious d'Hubert. Interestingly enough Scott managed to convince him to come in Europe and play the Hussar which made Carradine postpone a tour to promote his 1976 hit "I'm easy" (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2x...-live-1976_ads).
A fine array of English actors makes up for the rest of the cast; not only they are all excellen in their parts but they also provide the film with an authentic european aura (together with the locations).
The duellists, is notable for its exquisite cinematography (and use of natural lighting) and the attention to details as well as the interesting theme, the esoteric intensity of which is superbly translated in the screen by Scott's direction. The movie was shot on location in France for the most part and this makes up for many great scenes but also contributes to an air of authenticity in the film. The Russia scenes were shot in the Scottish Highlands. The duelling scenes are nothing short of superb.
The duellists is a small gem of a film, that although unlikely to appeal to blockbuster fans can certainly be appreciated by a large audience.
What is your favorite Napoleonic era film? :smiley2:
Akira Kurosawa's "RAN" and "Kagemusha", provided much of inspiration and atmosphere and even gameplay elements (the unit formation behaviour that are used to this day in TW are clearly portraid in both films - units are seen arrange themselves in broader or narrower rectangular formations) and even tactics (notice in the final battle of RAN that gunners hide in the trees to create enfilade killing zones against a charging cavalry heavy force) in Shogun:TW.
Ridley Scott's "Gladiator" was crucial not only as an inspiration but in setting the tone for Rome:TW; its success also prompted CA (according to Mike Simpson in the RTW Story) to anticipate "a bit of a Rome frenzy" and decide to make the game that broke TW into the mainstream. This is also clearly shown in how CA marketed the game, and how a large part of the fanbase perceived it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w59h-bPMiy4
For Medieval2:TW Ridley Scott's (again!) "Kingdom of Heaven" was central in setting the tone and being associated with the game (Saladin's depiction in the film was used in the special edition package iirc of M2TW http://img.game.co.uk/images/product...collectors.jpg).
There is a fine array of inspiring warfilms for the upcoming Napoleon TW, and although CA has undoubtedly has picked their own and incorporated them in the game, what are fan film favorites for this era?
I think that mine is a relatively unknown, although awarded and well regarded, film, that happens actually to be Ridley Scott's very first effort (up to then Scott was involved in the making of commercials that defined him as a director as anyone who has watched "Kingdom of Heaven" can attest; that movie was described by some as "a two hour long car commercial").
This is "The Duellists" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8nGgvepXCk), a film about the animosity between two cavalry officers (Hussars) in the Napoleonic Army at the height of the Naopleonic Wars, that degenerates in a series of "to the death" duells. The script is based on a Josef Conrad story.
The movie matches in the two protagonistis roles two (surprisingly) american actors; the country singer Keith Carradine as the upper class D'Hubert and the well known Harvey Keitel as the obsessive duellist lower class Feraud, who drags Carradine's character into the vortex of encounters at the edge of life and death.
Keitel at the time was finding it difficult to land roles in the US, hence the appreciation towards Scott for giving him a chance (Keitel repaid the favor by appearing in Scott's "Thelma and Luise" much later on). He plays the part he plays best: a cynical, violent obsessive character that channels his raw twisted energy in duels he picks up, essentially just to fight.
Caradine is equally adept in the role of well-brought-up, reliable and conscientious d'Hubert. Interestingly enough Scott managed to convince him to come in Europe and play the Hussar which made Carradine postpone a tour to promote his 1976 hit "I'm easy" (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2x...-live-1976_ads).
A fine array of English actors makes up for the rest of the cast; not only they are all excellen in their parts but they also provide the film with an authentic european aura (together with the locations).
The duellists, is notable for its exquisite cinematography (and use of natural lighting) and the attention to details as well as the interesting theme, the esoteric intensity of which is superbly translated in the screen by Scott's direction. The movie was shot on location in France for the most part and this makes up for many great scenes but also contributes to an air of authenticity in the film. The Russia scenes were shot in the Scottish Highlands. The duelling scenes are nothing short of superb.
The duellists is a small gem of a film, that although unlikely to appeal to blockbuster fans can certainly be appreciated by a large audience.
What is your favorite Napoleonic era film? :smiley2:
NTW- PC Zone preview (David Brown)
NTW- PC Zone preview (David Brown)
This includes quite a bit that has already been talked about in previous posts in the NTW thread, but does include a couple of minor points not covered so far. So here goes:
First of all it is an Expand alone campaign, i.e. Empire is not necessary to play NTW but Napoleon will integrate into Empire if present, adding units and new tech trees.
(Well I guess CA finally gave up on empire- doubt it if further patches will be made – pure conjecture on my part)
3 campaigns
Italy (1796-1797)
Middle-East/Egypt (1798 - 1801)
Mastery of Europe (Grand Campaign) (1805 - 1812)
Story based campaign similar to RTW-Alex and RTI
Ends in 1812 with his exile to Elba, the Hundred Days was considered too complex to portray as a campaign.
2 week turns to represent strategic depth
Smaller areas with more emphasis on villages and towns, a conscious de-emphasis on large provinces with single settlements.
3 kinds of settlements – economic/industrial/intellectual
322 unique units, though some custom battles only, with enhanced cinematographic effects (64 different faces on lowest settings) along with larger unit settings.
Finite pool of generals (they are no longer promoted) with unique traits.
AI Upgrade- new AI director system with short term campaign objectives- some of which hopefully it will try and actually achieve.
Rake is converted into spy with option to sabotage.
Lesser emphasis on naval warfare- though option to repair ships at sea added.
Finally a chain of supply has been added particularly for napoleon’s Russian campaign. Though one can mitigate the effects by building supply depots which may be captured or destroyed effectively starving out an army without fighting it- AI exploit anyone??
Finally the best is yet to come:
“CA claims Napoleon is made to appeal to a broader base, in fact the emphasis is on smaller scale campaigns instead of Grand campaigns to appeal to regular strategy players”- read RTS players. Well its official CA no longer wants the Grog nards to play this- nasty nasty Grog nards spreading lies about our precious !!.
If they don’t get the allusion here’s a hint that even the most thick headed amongst us will be able to get from ever so friendly reviewer:
“I can’t help it if the bugs other people experienced didn’t happen to me. Of course that and other issues have since been fixed even if some of us still haven’t had any issues of note”
This includes quite a bit that has already been talked about in previous posts in the NTW thread, but does include a couple of minor points not covered so far. So here goes:
First of all it is an Expand alone campaign, i.e. Empire is not necessary to play NTW but Napoleon will integrate into Empire if present, adding units and new tech trees.
(Well I guess CA finally gave up on empire- doubt it if further patches will be made – pure conjecture on my part)
3 campaigns
Italy (1796-1797)
Middle-East/Egypt (1798 - 1801)
Mastery of Europe (Grand Campaign) (1805 - 1812)
Story based campaign similar to RTW-Alex and RTI
Ends in 1812 with his exile to Elba, the Hundred Days was considered too complex to portray as a campaign.
2 week turns to represent strategic depth
Smaller areas with more emphasis on villages and towns, a conscious de-emphasis on large provinces with single settlements.
3 kinds of settlements – economic/industrial/intellectual
322 unique units, though some custom battles only, with enhanced cinematographic effects (64 different faces on lowest settings) along with larger unit settings.
Finite pool of generals (they are no longer promoted) with unique traits.
AI Upgrade- new AI director system with short term campaign objectives- some of which hopefully it will try and actually achieve.
Rake is converted into spy with option to sabotage.
Lesser emphasis on naval warfare- though option to repair ships at sea added.
Finally a chain of supply has been added particularly for napoleon’s Russian campaign. Though one can mitigate the effects by building supply depots which may be captured or destroyed effectively starving out an army without fighting it- AI exploit anyone??
Finally the best is yet to come:
“CA claims Napoleon is made to appeal to a broader base, in fact the emphasis is on smaller scale campaigns instead of Grand campaigns to appeal to regular strategy players”- read RTS players. Well its official CA no longer wants the Grog nards to play this- nasty nasty Grog nards spreading lies about our precious !!.
If they don’t get the allusion here’s a hint that even the most thick headed amongst us will be able to get from ever so friendly reviewer:
“I can’t help it if the bugs other people experienced didn’t happen to me. Of course that and other issues have since been fixed even if some of us still haven’t had any issues of note”
Oh YES, that's right, CA. You got it all correct, didn't you?!
Yep, you did one heck of a good, accurate, Eurocentric job. Praise the sweet lord. This map may date to the early 17th century, but heeeeeeey, it's still way better than CA will ever do, eh? And excuse my laziness in not properly scanning this; by all rights, I should actually be working on my essays right now.
