PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly Happy with the decision made?



Pages : [1] 2

edyzmedieval
08-22-2007, 17:49
Are you Orgahs happy with the decision made by having a 18th century TW game? Says your pros and cons, and don't forget to vote. :joker:

icek
08-22-2007, 17:56
Well its better than rome 2 , but still i hoped for something asian oriented.

BoyarPunk
08-22-2007, 17:57
Count me in as a "Not Sure".

Not crazy about this period of history....but then again, CA couldn't keep retreading old ground (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) could they?

Freedom Onanist
08-22-2007, 18:00
Absolutely! I can't really think of an era that fits the TW game mechanics better.

In terms of the campaign map it was incredibly competitive and complex.

On the battlefield I have always had to suspend my disbelief when ordering a discrete "unit" of dismounted knights to charge in a neat formation. Even the R TW series had problems for me. The blobby barbarian formation just seemed a bit of a bodge as a game mechnic. The canon and musket era had units manoeuvring in precise formations, changing formations firing to precise drills etc...

Plus this whole time period is defining to the world as it is still experienced today. I know the Romans had a huge impact and all that, but it can be a bit remote. Look at the world around yo now and you can still see this period right there in front of you. The relics of empire, the new nations, the new politics. More than any Renaissance Humanism the Enlightenment's focus on Reason pulled us and the rest of the world out of the claws of medieval obscurantism - pity we seem to be slipping back towards it!

NagatsukaShumi
08-22-2007, 18:09
I must admit I am happy now I have had time to think about it, I am looking forward to this immensly.

Its brining in a new period of history where the tactics and huge battles still remain, had it gone towards a period any time after Napoleon I wouldn't be buying it.

Looks good, got EUIII to tide me over 'til it lands :2thumbsup:

gardibolt
08-22-2007, 18:24
Frankly, they should finish M2TW first. Another expansion wouldn't hurt either. Gunplay doesn't excite me in any event; give me guys hacking each other up with swords any day.:smash:

NagatsukaShumi
08-22-2007, 18:34
Frankly, they should finish M2TW first. Another expansion wouldn't hurt either. Gunplay doesn't excite me in any event; give me guys hacking each other up with swords any day.:smash:

CA in Australia are in charge of MTWII, its unlikely there will be anymore expansions for it but not entirely impossible, although they are most likely now starting TW 6.

lars573
08-22-2007, 18:38
I'm happy. This period of warfare is one of my personal favorites. Problem is it's also one of the least understood. There are so many prejuidices and incorrect preconceptions around musket warfare I feel ETW might take a bit of unfair flak.

Husar
08-22-2007, 18:41
I don't know, depends on how the game plays.

I can imagine it being an awesome, immersive game if done right, but if it will be too "accessible", it can also turn out very bad. From experience I'd have to say it should be decent and keep me playing for months, but you never know, I'm not even sure about getting Kingdoms, some things about it sound more limiting and not to my taste, which dragged my initial enthusiasm down quite a bit.

Stuperman
08-22-2007, 18:42
I'm very hesitant about this game, the impression I have is that with both sides lined up facing each other; 40% of the men on the field will be dead after one volly.

And I'll be interested to see how tacking is handled in ship battles.

NagatsukaShumi
08-22-2007, 18:45
I'm very hesitant about this game, the impression I have is that with both sides lined up facing each other; 40% of the men on the field will be dead after one volly.

And I'll be interested to see how tacking is handled in ship battles.

I am interested to see how you control the boats really.

Elmar Bijlsma
08-22-2007, 18:47
While the era is right up my alley, nonetheless I'm unhappy with the choice. Total War has never been great at skirmishing and ranged combat. And now they take on the era where both are becoming dominant. Oh dear!

Zenicetus
08-22-2007, 18:51
I suppose they had to do this. It was the obvious next step, but I'm not too thrilled about it. On the plus side, I'm interested to see what they do with tactical naval combat. If they make it reasonably realistic, with points of sail and weather as *the* major tactical element, that will be a strong attraction for me. If it's just ships driving around like cars, feh.... I'll pass.

I'm also not that hot on gunpowder battles. This may be the prejudice and incorrect perception lars573 mentioned, but I see it as two armies lined up at a distance across an open field, with soldiers slowly dropping one by one until one army is left standing, and not that much maneuver. I know that not all historic battles played out like that, but a heck of a lot of them did. One of the big attractions of the TW series for me has been the up close and personal, hack and slash, melee combat with an interesting mix of units.

So I don't know.... I voted "no they should have done something else" because I'm not sure the naval combat will be good, and I'm not naturally attracted to this period. Fooey. I was really hoping for a Three Kingdoms game, or anything else without gunpowder.

Lovasìjász
08-22-2007, 18:52
While the era is right up my alley, nonetheless I'm unhappy with the choice. Total War has never been great at skirmishing and ranged combat. And now they take on the era where both are becoming dominant. Oh dear!

according to the prieview, new AI, new mechanics, new battlefield...I wouldn't be so judgmental , after seeing 3 images of boats shooting around.

Ser Clegane
08-22-2007, 19:20
Not sure - the chosen era was not particularly high on my wishlist (I wasn't so keen on gunpowder) - but I am certainly open to be convinved otherwise and the naval battles might be a very interesting addition.

I am likely to buy it if it turns out to be well done but I will probably wait a bit longer than for the previous installments to see how other people here like it.

Of course a new PC will also be required as mine is already 3.5 years old (but I was planning to get a new one next year anyway).

Bottomline: It's not a dream come true for me, but it's not a "no-no" either.

The Internet
08-22-2007, 19:25
I find it funny that they haven't even fixed MTW2 yet and they've already started something completely new with a totally new engine. Perhaps they should learn from their mistakes from Rome and MTW2 (and fix them) before they try something they've not dabbled in before.


Put me down as a no.

Monarch
08-22-2007, 19:28
I find it funny that they haven't even fixed MTW2 yet and they've already started something completely new with a totally new engine. Perhaps they should learn from their mistakes from Rome and MTW2 (and fix them) before they try something they've not dabbled in before.


Put me down as a no.


M2 was made by CA oz, afaik ETW is being developed by the UK studio they developed stw, mtw and rtw.

Bob the Insane
08-22-2007, 19:31
I love it... I am a big fan of Sharpe and such but my historical reading of the time period is very lacking... Also as a Brit living in the US I have a definate interest in the revolutionary war period...

My only wish would be to bulk out the time scale a little to start say 1600 and run through to 1800... That should really drive the fast pace of technical advance into sharp focus...

The Internet
08-22-2007, 19:34
M2 was made by CA oz, afaik ETW is being developed by the UK studio they developed stw, mtw and rtw.



RTW had just as many bad bugs as MTW2. TBH i don't have high hopes for ETW, the only reason i still play Rome is because teams like RTR and EB have done a fantastic job in improving the game so much and it is the only reason Rome has become as popular as it is IMO.

Elmar Bijlsma
08-22-2007, 19:44
according to the prieview, new AI, new mechanics, new battlefield...I wouldn't be so judgmental , after seeing 3 images of boats shooting around.

Well, I have heard those premises before. What CA promises and what they can deliver tend not to be the same thing. I'm not writing it off, mind you. But and this point not being sceptical would be foolish. If I'm judgemental, seven years of reading CA's PR department musings made me so... or sumfink! Because what you are reading now isn't designed to inform you about the game features, it's function is to make you want it.

Oh well, it isn't all bad. Maybe this will make CA re-introduce rank morale bonuses. It's essential for musketry based warfare.
And I have to admit, the prospect of ship to ship actions are rather nice. Oh hell, who am I kidding? I'm going to buy it anyway, then probably moan about it afterwards! :laugh4:

Kings Hand
08-22-2007, 19:53
I'm happy about the decision, my intrest in the era was piqued after playing ntw2, but the chance to play a colonial era campaign sounds great.
I do hope they make the naval battles into another complete tactical element, with wind direction etc having the necessary effect on the battle. The thought of a unleashing a devastating broadside into your enemy followed by boarding and a melee on her decks does sound good.

Thats a yes.

The Stranger
08-22-2007, 20:02
hope they wont rush it

Bijo
08-22-2007, 20:04
[quote]Happy with the decision made?
Not necessarily happy. I am rather skeptical about how it will be.

Game publishers and developers have boasted many a time about the product they are to release. Often I observe all kinds of hyping and nice-looking texts describing an upcoming game, pictures too and trailers and other video clips. And then the product is finalized and released and what do I see? It didn't become the good superior game one would expect. A more critical mind would even be more disappointed (and I have a critical mind).

No, no... really... Happiness is out of the question for me. I will await its release, observe how other people talk about it, purchase it when its price has dropped, await patches, and THEN play. That is how skeptical I am. In fact, I think I will await the Gold edition or something like it that has it all in one box.


The decision that it features this certain era is in order I guess.

alex9337
08-22-2007, 20:22
Like many of the posters here, I, too, am not overly enamoured with gunpowder.

I have made the small mod to M2TW, changing the turns to be 1 turn = 6 months. This makes my generals age at the same rate as the game and also gives me the benefit of playing and winning a grand campaign long before gun powder units even become available. This is my preference.

I must admit I am intrigued by the addition of the naval battles. I trust it will be very cool.

The bottom line is, for me, that now I only play the TW games. For some reason the perfect mix of turn-based strategy on the campaign map, combined with the RTS element of real-time battle, is exactly what I have always been looking for in a computer game where I am going to spend (waste) countless hours of my time!:laugh4: I just can't seem to get into any other games right now. It has been this way for me since late 2005, when I first acquired Rome: Total War.

So, I voted "not sure". I will definitely buy it, there is no doubt about that. I am just not convinced that I will like the time period. I, too, like the "hack & slash" of melee combat with swordsmen, billmen, spearmen, etc.

Alexander the Pretty Good
08-22-2007, 20:26
Too early to tell. I like the period (or I do by the time the French and Indian War starts) but it will still boil down to how good of a game it is.

That means, among other things:

AI
Modability
Good sense of scale

I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...

Odin
08-22-2007, 20:32
Too early to tell. I like the period (or I do by the time the French and Indian War starts) but it will still boil down to how good of a game it is.

That means, among other things:

AI
Modability
Good sense of scale

I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...

Pretty much what he said.

:thumbsup:

Noir
08-22-2007, 20:33
The era is just as good as any pre WWI - in fact with all this unecessary gunpowder and artillery in MTW2 it was sort of predictable; commercially wise too (to stand above the various competitors -EUIII & AoE3&the Lordz? - a needed change of pace for CA - and the instrumental inclusion of the US as a playable faction i would guess). Its the implementation though that will count for me.

When i compare the status of vanilla MTW and RTW (and MTW2 altough i havent played this that much) with their mods, i find that the vanilla games are not fine tuned at all and the engine's potential and gameplay balance are not really explored/pursued by CA it self (they are by modders).

Of course this is natural considering all the bugs that the games contain upon release especially since RTW; CA is busy ironing them out and also making new games with apparently even more features than they can reasonably handle upon release as experience suggests.

Probably the main debate will be over "how tactical gunpowder warfare can be" and the like, but this is not the point as far as i am concerned; we know that tactics mattered then. The point is how the game engine will cope and how gameplay will be, be it against the AI or in mp, and this will not be revealed before release.

A disheartening thing is the continuing abundance of features and the all important "wow" seeking. Aren't people tired with all this marketing style promises, flashy screenshots and the Mike Simpson cliche that "this will be the best Total War game ever" in every announcement of a brand new release?

MTW2 screenshots looked (and look) just as impressive as the ones they've been released for ETW, yet the dynamic visual impression with the spasmodic animations and the dissapearing and reappearing cavalry lances made the whole look like the annual dance of a school for kids with special needs with Harry Houdini as a guest to me - let alone a battle - so i'll keep my jaw and reservations firmly in their place until i actually see the whole thing at work.

Another non-measurable feature is immersiveness, that elusive quality that indicates originality of atmosphere, or absence of it. Again, experience suggests that little do impressive screenshots and CGs have to do with that. Past RTW CA has treated the cinematic factor of their games in a litteral way; however as it was indicated countless times by many the whole feels "gamy", in comparison to their older games. I doubt that ETW will take a different approach on that too, although i hope i'm proved wrong.

Having said all this, the game has potential to be great with the naval battles adding a new element of depth to it.

However it can also (more probably, experience says) be the usual conquest rush that CA favors in the campaign game, with poor AI, meaningless diplomacy and plenty of new bugs that the community can discover, discuss, argue about and a lack of balance on the battlefield for the hundred new units and unit types.

I guess the mp part at least will be surely great since an "original" suggestion thread has been opened in the .com. Obviously all that feedback and suggestions by people like Yellow Mellon or of the old mp community in the Jousting Fields that made thread upon thread of suggestions and plenty of modifications to show their ideas at work weren't "original" enough.

Many Thanks

Noir

Hoplite7
08-22-2007, 20:57
I was hoping for R2:TW to be honest. Lining people up with guns doesn't seem at all very interesting to me, it's kind of like having an all-foot archer battle in M2:tw. I prefered the more exotic feel to Rome as well, variety of units and situations. (elephants, chariots, barbarians ect)

I'll still buy it because I'm a sucker for Total War series... but I wish they didn't waste the Alexander and fall of Rome periods on expansions.

Martok
08-22-2007, 21:05
Not sure - the chosen era was not particularly high on my wishlist (I wasn't so keen on gunpowder) - but I am certainly open to be convinved otherwise and the naval battles might be a very interesting addition.

I am likely to buy it if it turns out to be well done but I will probably wait a bit longer than for the previous installments to see how other people here like it.

Of course a new PC will also be required as mine is already 3.5 years old (but I was planning to get a new one next year anyway).

Bottomline: It's not a dream come true for me, but it's not a "no-no" either.
Well put, Ser Clegane; you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth. :yes:

Two big strikes against this game (for me) is that I have only a mild interest in the historical period covered, plus I'm not a big gunpowder afficianado -- I don't even care for the late Medieval period all that much because of the introduction of cannon.

For me, my getting the game will depend on a couple key things: How well the naval battles turn out, and how good the AI and diplomacy is this time around. I'm admittedly not terribly optimistic, but I'm not going to just write off Empire either. Right now, I'm a "maybe" and leaning towards "no".

TinCow
08-22-2007, 21:11
Yes, simply because it promises a bit of change. I liked the evolution from the STW/MTW engine to the RTW/M2TW engine. I expect that CA will make similarly great leaps to the third gen engine.

Now I am just praying that the AI doesn't get left behind in the jump.

Zenicetus
08-22-2007, 21:54
I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...

Good point. Well, if they stick with the current format where all ships are basically combat-oriented (no unarmed merchant ships), then no pirate in that period would mess with an actual government fleet unless they were a sanctioned raider; effectively another government-backed fleet. So there shouldn't be the kind of random small-time pirate hassles we have in RTW and M2TW. There need to be a few single ship pirates in the Caribbean or it won't have the right flavor, but I hope they don't overdo that.

I'd like to see a focus on larger fleet battles, so let's hope they've figured out a way to reduce the frequency of naval combat to the point where each battle is more "epic" and worth the time to play it out. Maybe a requirement for certain ship types, or numbers of ships in a fleet before 3D tactical battles can be fought?

And also a more fine-grained and reliable auto-calc when you want to bypass them. I'm hoping the tactical elements are realistic enough (weather and points of sail) that a lot of people would want to bypass them. If the naval combat is quick and easy, then it can't possibly be realistic enough for us salty dogs who actually know a thing or two about sailing. If the sea battles don't match the realism (such as it is) of the 3D land battles, CA will never hear the end of it.

:captain:

Benandorf
08-22-2007, 22:27
I'm... content. Not the best period for them to make a game in (they really needed to go back and make S2:TW), but better than pretty much any time period afterwards. The problem I see (and the reason that games set in times past E:TW) is that the majority of troops will be Missile troops. You'll have Cavalry too, at least, but it's not like there were a lot of swordsmen in the 1700s.

Yoshitsune
08-22-2007, 22:32
I'm now rather sorry that samurai Japan - my favourite period - was the first in the series as it is now rather dated. Will probably never see a samurai game with all the benefits incorporated from RTW onwards that the subject required...

ixidor
08-22-2007, 22:38
Actually, very happy. They had already 2 games about the medieval era, as from Rome. The asian part was also aboarded. Also, i think this game can be awesome since you have the possibility the dominate the world, literally! I mean, we don't know it but, if you can dominate all europe, north africa, west asia and most of america, why not to have a world map?

Also:

http://www.shacknews.com/screenshots.x?gallery=8169&game_id=4635&id=104099

A love this graphics :)

alpaca
08-22-2007, 22:39
I love it. It was exactly what I had hoped for. The period is just perfect for the whole game mechanics, and it'll allow CA to get away from the paper-scissors-rock system that's not exactly realistic and in my opinion doesn't make much sense from a gameplay point-of-view either.

Imagine: We will get a map of the whole world, be able to conquer it, bring it under our rule. We can send whole continents into ruin or make them thrive on our whim. We will finally be able to fight naval battles, and experience all the new tactics that are introduced there, and in real, disciplined gunpowder battles.
If we're lucky, CA will even finally include a support mechanism (maybe optional) which would also open up a completely new huge batch of gameplay decisions.

The period introduced the first truly global empires, the industrial revolution and colonization with all their good and bad points. And it's a brand new setting. I know a lot of you wanted to see another stick-and-blade game, but this is much more interesting in my opinion.

CA couldn't have made a better decision.

Miracle
08-23-2007, 01:13
So now it appears CA Oz and M2TW were created simply to sate our hunger for TW games in the interim, whilst in the grand scheme of things this was what CA Proper had long planned for and developed.

I'm just as amazed as everyone else is at the announcement but, as Noir has discussed, it's when we finally play the game for weeks on end that we'll see whether it will stand the test of time.

iblewafuse14
08-23-2007, 01:20
I'm not sure... I would've liked to have seen a new game around like "Ancient Total War" where the focus isn't on Rome as much, maybe more like Grecce and East Asia, Would be nice to have factions that had great navaies such as the Greeks, Persians, Phoenicians, would be great to have triemes ramming into an enemy ship whiling slowly moving back to let it sink :2thumbsup:

TB666
08-23-2007, 01:49
Since I love gunpowder units and loves the NTW1 mod for MTW1, this era fits me like a glove.
And to make it even more special, naval battles.
I couldn't be more happier with this.

Lysander13
08-23-2007, 02:14
Well put, Ser Clegane; you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth. :yes:

Two big strikes against this game (for me) is that I have only a mild interest in the historical period covered, plus I'm not a big gunpowder afficianado -- I don't even care for the late Medieval period all that much because of the introduction of cannon.

For me, my getting the game will depend on a couple key things: How well the naval battles turn out, and how good the AI and diplomacy is this time around. I'm admittedly not terribly optimistic, but I'm not going to just write off Empire either. Right now, I'm a "maybe" and leaning towards "no".
Well put yourself, Martok; as you have pretty much echoed my sentiments as well. Being a classical era fan i was really hoping for RTW2. I have little interest in the era that'll be covered by the game....Gunpowder units and battles?....Bah!!!!....I'll take Diadochi, Roman Legions and Spartans everytime.
Although the naval battle stuff sounds pretty cool. Put me down for no.

Furious Mental
08-23-2007, 02:50
Finally, pantaloons!

Csargo
08-23-2007, 04:30
I'm happy with it, but I would hope that they would have extend the timeline a little.

christof139
08-23-2007, 06:12
Too short a time period for this new game. It could have been extended to the ACW etc. with Ironclads, stopping at about 1870 or so.

Seems like a Pirates game in effect, or Great Age of Sail or whatever the older and good game was named.

Also seems like a quickie, a game made with a new engine just to see how it will be accepted, then maybe in the future other time periods will be covered such as the Ancients through Renaissance eras.

I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.

Chris

fenir
08-23-2007, 07:00
As most of you know me, I am most certainly not likely to mince words if I think the game mechanics have let us down.
But I think many here (and understandably after M2TW), are a little wary of the claims made by the marketers.
As we all know and understand marketing is about...Ok put nicely, propaganda.
Hence the importance of coders, and the game developers information more than anything else.

But, lets not jump the gun.
The inclusion of Naval battles is certainly a step forward. It is something we asked for(and hoped for) way back in MTW.
It was almost a forgone conclusion that CA would progress the time line due to the inclusion of Cannon and Musket in M2TW, by precedence CA try out the toys in a prep, within each previous game.
And no different here.
But we must deviod ourselves of our current opinions and focus instead upon the developing new release.
Perhaps, there is still time to help with what we want with regards to the new game?
As CA release information, lets us try and build upon it with regards to information they provide, and the information we otherwise feel needs to be included.
With ETW I hope to see some basic improvements, such as increase in tradible goods, with the ability to mod the number and types.
I would like to see the return of Titles. As in MTW attach to the name, and ability to award titles to generals et cetera... of Different ranks, exempli gratia; Knight (sir), Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marques, Dukes, and maybe even Princes. All with the ability to preceed in lineage.
I would like to see and end to adoption in the family tree. It was way over used and disfunctional by comparision with MTW family tree imho.
I do like the generals part tho. But not including the generals marriage to a princess and right to claim family in succession.
But, perhaps we can have Families of Lords, that as a lord dies, his son takes the titles and still provides service to the empire.
This way allowing the royal family help in the governance of the empire.
Choosing a faction heir, make it primus genetia as in salic law. With the ability to change it if we want? As in RTW.
Make the unit card have a button on it, that can allow us to award titles or view and change other options. to ease the micro mangement.
I hate having to reproduce spies inter alia. Unless they are killed.

So let us work towards making the imporvements of this new game, and hope we are taken note of by the powers that be.
So if not already, lets start a thread in poin form on what we would like to see, and ideas underneath on how we think in the current format, these can be achived.


sincerely

fenir

Zenicetus
08-23-2007, 07:21
Too short a time period for this new game. It could have been extended to the ACW etc. with Ironclads, stopping at about 1870 or so.

Seems like a Pirates game in effect, or Great Age of Sail or whatever the older and good game was named.

Sure, but that makes sense if they're actually doing a fairly realistic sail-based naval combat engine. The AI has to be designed to work with those tactics. Once you get into Ironclads you're in the age of Steam. You can point the ship in any direction, and wind-based tactics don't matter. It's a whole other tactical situation, which implies a different tactical AI to develop.


I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.

I'd go for that Ancient/Medieval naval game too. The boarding/ramming action would be fun, and we'd get to play with Greek Fire! Probably more of a niche market thing though, so I understand why they did this as their first naval combat engine. If they get this right (I'm naturally skeptical but I hope I'm proven wrong), then it can be easily adapted to an expansion or later game with steam powered navies, or a mix or sail and steam. Internal combustion powered ships are much easier to model than sailing ships and tactics.

Rhedd
08-23-2007, 07:35
I voted "not sure".

I was rather hoping for epic, colorful battles in Ancient China and Korea. (Including naval warfare. Gotta have those Korean ships!)

Empire's time period isn't one that I'd say I'm overly interested in, but the one game I played (ages ago) that was set in this period, I ended up enjoying quite a bit. And I do love naval warfare of this period.

All-in-all, I think it'll be fun, but I'll still play Medieval2 (my very favorite period), as well.

Yay for variety!

mor dan
08-23-2007, 08:51
i voted no and for something else. i would prefer them to stay away from gun powder and stick with true formation warfare. the thing that made old school warfare so cool was you basically lined up on both sides and yelled, "let's kick some ass!" and everybody ran in and started swinging swords and axes. it's a bit chaotic, yeah, but much more fun to control in my opinion. i think the landscape would look very different today without the discovery of gun powder.


it's been done like 30 times by KOEI, but i would have liked to have seen a Han Dynasty, or some other Chinese Imperial installment from the turn of the century, or even further back to Babylonian/Persian wars between 600-400 BC, leading up to the Roman Empire. Bandit Kings of Ancient China did the same thing, in the sense that you had until a certain year to complete your goals before the Mongolian conquest began and your game was over.

but yeah, something in between 1000 and 200 BC in the Middle East, or between 200 BC and 600 AD in ancient China.


not that this won't be fun, because it will be a blast and i will pre-order as soon as it is available. but Medieval, Rome,and Medieval 2 all deal in the same area, and all this does is expand on that area by adding north america and i guess more asia and africa. at that point, you might as well just do the whole world. i am uber excited about Naval battles...

Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 09:15
Well, like I said earlier, personally I can’t think of an era better suited to the mechanics of the TW battles. Credible formations drilled to manoeuvre on a battlefield in different formations. This was never something that fitted comfortably with most of the factions in a medieval or dark ages setting. Even the RTW had a fair few factions which would never have walked about a battlefield in formations of serried ranks – Gauls, Germans, etc… Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don’t mean a bunch of guys in a shieldwall, that’s not a military formation capable of meaningful evolutions and drills.

It makes me wonder when people talk about the lack of tactics in the gunpowder era. As opposed to the medieval? By gunpowder era most of the ancient (classical) texts had been restudied, most of the more fantastical elements tried and dropped in the Renaissance (re-introduction of “legionary” armed troops, attempts to use the turtle, etc…) useful lessons learned and new tactics were evolving. Riflemen and jaegers showing the first outline of what the modern soldier looks like.

I have also felt the dark cloud of “fantasy” hanging over some of the earlier games, where units felt they were in the game to pad out a faction. Got to say this really took off with the “martial arts” film second edition of Shogun TW. Remember the “super samurai” unit of 1 man who could take down a whole formation of spearmen with uber katana (the best sword in the world don’t cha know)? That’s OK for Jacky Chan but not a game that has a pretence at historical accuracy, however tenuous.

The naval battles will simply add an extra layer of icing for me.

Given all that, I do subscribe to the views expressed here that we will still have to wait and see. I am worried not about the battlefield era setting but the campaign AI. This seems to be getting more complex which on the one hand is good, but on the other could seriously rubbish the battles.

One thing that does worry me with the TW series is that reviews always talk of the game being an “RTS”. I just hope it never develops into that – the PAUSE button rules the tactics of this game.

Anyway, after a lot of blather, and just re-itterate, yes I am cautiously happy.

christof139
08-23-2007, 09:23
Sure, but that makes sense if they're actually doing a fairly realistic sail-based naval combat engine. The AI has to be designed to work with those tactics. Once you get into Ironclads you're in the age of Steam. You can point the ship in any direction, and wind-based tactics don't matter. It's a whole other tactical situation, which implies a different tactical AI to develop.

I'd go for that Ancient/Medieval naval game too. The boarding/ramming action would be fun, and we'd get to play with Greek Fire! Probably more of a niche market thing though, so I understand why they did this as their first naval combat engine. If they get this right (I'm naturally skeptical but I hope I'm proven wrong), then it can be easily adapted to an expansion or later game with steam powered navies, or a mix or sail and steam. Internal combustion powered ships are much easier to model than sailing ships and tactics.

The same game engine within the same game could handle both sail and steamships, it would be a simple matter of having the steamships not affected by the wind too much if at all, and that would be done by simply coding it into the unit stats etc.

So, I'll wait until these things are done.

For large ancient battles involving hundreds of ships per side, a scale of 1 model/sprite to 5 actual ships might work, as this way you would get the tactiacl feel of such a sea battle, and a land combat game engine could be adapted for use. So, you would have a unit of 5 Triremes as compared to 60 Infantrymen, or 10 Biremes/Liburnians/Uniremes/Hemiolas/Dhows/Knarrs/Whatevers. This could easily be done, but I think it is a matter of just how many customers would appreciate it. If you mantion the word 'Economus' to most people, they probably would think you are speaking of the Greek God of economy or the economy itself in one manner or another. :wall:

Chris

PS: @FreedomO.: Actually the Gauls and Germans frequently and usually advanced in serried ranks at a steady pace until they got close enough to the enemy to initiate a charge. They even held their ranks on the defensive in a very disciplined manner and this is documented in several original sources. They weren't idiots but did not have the smaller and more flexible units of the Romans, but they didn't start a charge 200 yard/meters away from the enemy as that would tire them out quickly, and they were very familiar with warfare.

Akka
08-23-2007, 09:28
Definitely NO.

I don't like gunpowder warfare prior to WWI, and I prefer pre-gunpowder warfare overall anyway. I'm also not very fond of most of the era covered (the only part sparking my interest is the French Revolution/Napoléon period).

Additionnally, I'm quite wary of all the things that Noir pointed out : lack of polish, many bugs, unexploited potential. This latter one, particularly considering the MTW2 debacle when it comes to the "feel" of the battle (with ridiculous unit behaviour and very boring and lethargic fighting) doesn't make me any more optimistic.
All the commercial/marketting hype tends to make me more and more wary of the quality and depth of the game. Usually, the more you make flashy presentations and dithyrambic speech about how great the game will be, the more consolized and bland it is.

CA is a bit the Bethesda of strategy games : they have enormous ambition, they make games which are a genre by themselves, they have titanic potential, but they fall short of polish, QA testing and balance, letting the modder doing the final job - and often even not allowing them to do with hardcoded limits all over.

Anyway, I will NOT buy this one. If I ever play it, it'd be because someone give or lend me, but I'm really not interested at all in this game.

Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 09:59
PS: @FreedomO.: Actually the Gauls and Germans frequently and usually advanced in serried ranks at a steady pace until they got close enough to the enemy to initiate a charge. They even held their ranks on the defensive in a very disciplined manner and this is documented in several original sources. They weren't idiots but did not have the smaller and more flexible units of the Romans, but they didn't start a charge 200 yard/meters away from the enemy as that would tire them out quickly, and they were very familiar with warfare.

Here we go...

I don't doubt (in fact I know) that the "barbarians" were not idiots and did use formations etc... However, it would have been large bodies of men moving forwards, not discrete units moving around in formation from one end of the battle field to another. They never achieved that kind of flexibility on a consistent basis, precisely because their society was more fractured. Which isn't a negative reflection on them, just a fact of their differences. They never centralised their power structures to the point were they could impose standard training, drills, logistics, uniforms, weaponry, etc... These are all things the TW battle format needs and fits better to the period in question. It wasn't able to comfortably represent the diversity of the barbarian faction in my eyes is all.

Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 10:01
I'm also not very fond of most of the era covered (the only part sparking my interest is the French Revolution/Napoléon period).

By the accent you wouldn't be French would you?:beam:

Daveybaby
08-23-2007, 10:06
Definitely yes. While i'm sure another pre-gunpowder era wouldve been fine (e.g. 3 kingdoms), it would run the risk of just being the same game all over again but with different costumes. I mean, how many times do you want to play swords vs archers vs cavalry?

A change of pace was definitely required, something with a completely different feel to it. I'm sure they'll return to pre-gunpowder for the next game in the series anyway.

Graphic
08-23-2007, 12:08
No, they should have made something else. I have no interest in this time period whatsoever. They should have made Shogun 2: Total War or Asia: Total War. Asia in general got snubbed.

Mount Suribachi
08-23-2007, 12:39
Definately yes!

I've been one of those who've wanted a gunpowder game for TW4 for a long time. The NTW mod, even with all its limitations of gameplay and AI, was tremendous fun and showed what potential this era has.

The naval battles sound like they are implementing lots of different factors, so its clearly being taken seriously. Now if they couple that with a real-time campaign map (as has been discussed here before).......*drools*

Of course, CA need to include a free PC upgrade and a time-warping maching that gives me 4-5 spare hours a day so I can actually play the game ~:)

EDIT: Oh, and the modders will have a field day with this. Sooooo many eras and wars can now be properly done - ECW, 30 yrs war, right through to the Crimean War and ACW

DisruptorX
08-23-2007, 12:52
Yes, I think I'll have fun with it. I actually really enjoy ranged battles in MTW 2 (though not so much in the first medieval). Lone lines of muskets, and shock cavalry to break the enemy's troops, yum.

Really, as long as they don't make another damn WW2 game, I'll be happy with whatever they do after Empire, too.

NagatsukaShumi
08-23-2007, 13:05
To be fair this Total War has the potential to end the midlessly annoying "conquer everybody" mentality that has existed all through out the series. In Shogun it made sense, after all you were competing to become Shogun in one small area, but conquering the entire of Europe never made sense in Medieval, and in reality conquering it all never did in Rome either.

Empire has the opportunity to play much like Europa Universalis in the sense that it can bring back the Glorius Achievements to build up points, and allow you to win by merely colonising certain area's and bringing your country forward in tech and so forth, thus stopping the boring "conquer everything" syndrome that has dogged Total War. I will admit I am looking forward greatly to Kindoms due to the area being reduced, making the conquering seem more, possible, really.

I really do want Glorious Achievements back, it was an immense feature and really did let you play to your own hearts content without having to blitz the rest of Europe.

SaFe
08-23-2007, 13:25
After reading the typical PR promotion about Empire i'm not sure Glorious achievements are in.
They talk too much about world-spanning empires(aka: conquer at least 50 provinces, etc...)

They claim that they listen to their fanbase(a poll was even made), but Glorious achievements would be a top point on the wishlist of their fans.

Perhaps they listened this time...

jean_s
08-23-2007, 13:47
The period maybe the right one choosed but let's see what they will manage to do.
Still Shogun:TW deserves a remake, in my opinion.

Nobunaga
08-23-2007, 13:49
i hope for the best but i really don't have high expectations

Rodion Romanovich
08-23-2007, 14:18
Will Boney/Nappy era be covered as well?

Kraggenmor
08-23-2007, 14:25
I'm looking forward to it. I think the choice of the "Wooden ships & Iron Men" era is spot on in light of the decision to finally add actual naval combat.

I look forward to fighting the Amercian revolutionary war.

Akeichi Mitsuhide
08-23-2007, 14:31
im gonna love this game alright. Just hope its the MIITW engine and not a new one(i need a new pc if its a new engine).

Jack Lusted
08-23-2007, 14:36
Empire will be using a brand new engine.

iblewafuse14
08-23-2007, 14:57
I like the Idea though that you can "capture" buildings on the battlemap and use them to fire on the enemy.. should be neat to see how that works... Hopefully they fix the idea of amubushes.. I think you should be able to move troops in woods.. unless it's obvious there are there.. but say on the other side of some woods. :yes:

Cornwallis
08-23-2007, 15:05
Absolutely psyched for this one. This is the one I've been waiting for since they started making total war

Akka
08-23-2007, 15:45
By the accent you wouldn't be French would you?:beam:
Yep. Probably one of the main reason I do like Napoléonic era, to be honest, together with the continent-spanning scale of the conflicts, and the personnality of the little megalomaniac :p

Kraggenmor
08-23-2007, 16:14
I like the Idea though that you can "capture" buildings on the battlemap and use them to fire on the enemy.. should be neat to see how that works...

Thinking about it just now; this feature could lead to some interesting 'capture the flag' type multi player maps.

BoyarPunk
08-23-2007, 16:16
Acutally, the more I think about it, I am glad they chose this time period over what could have been (a grand disaster): 1939-1945: Total War
:sweatdrop:

Mount Suribachi
08-23-2007, 17:30
Empire has the opportunity to play much like Europa Universalis in the sense that it can bring back the Glorius Achievements to build up points, and allow you to win by merely colonising certain area's and bringing your country forward in tech and so forth, thus stopping the boring "conquer everything" syndrome that has dogged Total War. I will admit I am looking forward greatly to Kindoms due to the area being reduced, making the conquering seem more, possible, really.

Unless you're playing as Napoleonic France ~;)

Freedom Onanist
08-23-2007, 17:57
Unless you're playing as Napoleonic France ~;)

In which case you just go for everything:dizzy2:

Graphic
08-23-2007, 18:29
Some of you are right though, this is better than WW2 Total War. Company of Heroes reached the pinnacle of WW2 rts, everyone else should just give up.

Matt_Lane
08-23-2007, 18:32
Yeah, I'd say I'm fairly happy with the direction CA are taking this. :2thumbsup: I think it would have been interesting to re explore Rome or head East to Medieval Indo-China but if they get the gunpowder and navel battles right and if the AI re write is more successful than MTW2's version then game could be a corker. However I am surprised CA's website only mentions Europe, America and India. I would have thought Africa and East Asia would have been needed in order to properly explore European Empire building.

Graphic
08-23-2007, 18:41
Yeah, I'd say I'm fairly happy with the direction CA are taking this. :2thumbsup: I think it would have been interesting to re explore Rome or head East to Medieval Indo-China but if they get the gunpowder and navel battles right and if the AI re write is more successful than MTW2's version then game could be a corker. However I am surprised CA's website only mentions Europe, America and India. I would have thought Africa and East Asia would have been needed in order to properly explore European Empire building.

My guess is they decided that having an aspect to the game featuring African slaves would be too controversial. They have slaves in RTW and MTW but the slaves that this game would have be a little to fresh on the memory.

My guess is there will be mentions of it in Historical Events and the like, but no slave resource.

Hooahguy
08-23-2007, 23:31
im happy, but i wont be if the game is rated "M" or has really high system reqiurements.

Mailman653
08-23-2007, 23:48
This is best news I've seen all day, its so awesome, not only can you board ships in naval combat, but you have musicians and drumers on the field of battle just like how it was, this game will be amazing no doubt about it.

I've been dying to play with the Continental army in a game for the longest time.

Orda Khan
08-24-2007, 00:20
After all the fuss that was made about M2TW and what we actually got, why would anyone be expecting much from this idea? M2TW is still not fixed.

.......Orda

AggonyDuck
08-24-2007, 00:24
Yeah, I'd say I'm fairly happy with the direction CA are taking this. :2thumbsup: I think it would have been interesting to re explore Rome or head East to Medieval Indo-China but if they get the gunpowder and navel battles right and if the AI re write is more successful than MTW2's version then game could be a corker. However I am surprised CA's website only mentions Europe, America and India. I would have thought Africa and East Asia would have been needed in order to properly explore European Empire building.

That said the colonisation of Africa and East Asia truly started after the 18th Century, so in a way it does make sense not to include them.

Matt_Lane
08-24-2007, 00:27
This is best news I've seen all day, its so awesome, not only can you board ships in naval combat, but you have musicians and drumers on the field of battle just like how it was, this game will be amazing no doubt about it.

I've been dying to play with the Continental army in a game for the longest time.

If players have been complaining about irritating commentary how long before there rioting because of non stop bag pipes.

On a more serious note Sharpe and the likes shows us what led the British army into battle, does any one know it if was anything different from pipe and drums for other nations armies?

pevergreen
08-24-2007, 00:31
This has the potential to be great. Very great. Lets see how Naval Combat comes, as well as a demo, or videos.

NagatsukaShumi
08-24-2007, 01:48
Unless you're playing as Napoleonic France ~;)

Bloody French, when we all stop expanding in Europe they decide to start :laugh4:

Pode
08-24-2007, 02:34
I'm cautiously optimistic, given that they hired Lusted, that CA may be humble enough to build on the fine work done by the Lordz on NTW I and II. I'm deeply leery of the naval combat, though. Ancient, oared combat would have been a much simpler hurdle to jump for both players and AI. It's not trivial to teach humans to sail, never mind properly fight a sailing ship, and CA's AI track record makes me skeptical that they'll be able to get a tactical naval AI that can handle winds and crossing the T. If they don't, why bother with the Age of Sail? Even if they do, it'll pwn almost every player for months until they come up the learning curve on frigate tactics. Why set yourselves up for failure like this?

Zenicetus
08-24-2007, 03:21
It's not trivial to teach humans to sail, never mind properly fight a sailing ship, and CA's AI track record makes me skeptical that they'll be able to get a tactical naval AI that can handle winds and crossing the T. If they don't, why bother with the Age of Sail? Even if they do, it'll pwn almost every player for months until they come up the learning curve on frigate tactics. Why set yourselves up for failure like this?

Yep, this is the aspect that's the most intriguing to me. We've all been (well, most of us have been) asking for real tactical naval combat, and it's great that they're attempting it, but how's it going to play out? They're jumping right into the MOST complicated naval combat style with sailing, as you point out. Earlier oar-based ships, or later internal combustion tactics are a lot more direct and easier to understand.

It doesn't have to be too complicated. If each ship has an AI captain and the player doesn't have to micromanage the actual sailing, then all the player needs... even someone new to sail tactics... is a clear indication of how far the ship (or a fleet, in formation) can point upwind; a clear indication of where the "invalid directions" are on the compass.

This could be done on the tactical mini-map as a pie-shaped zone ahead of the ship where you can't go, when a single ship or a fleet is selected... something like that. The fleet selected as a whole would be more restricted in maneuverability than some selected single ships, because some of the smaller designs can point further up into the wind than the big square-rigged ships of the line. By contrast, if you're in the wrong tactical position... dead downwind from a ship of the line in a smaller and more maneuverable but slower ship (compared to a square rigger running downwind), and with fewer cannon, then you're hosed. You can't do a tactical retreat upwind in a smaller vessel.

If the information is clearly shown, along with info about broadside firepower vs. bow and stern chaser cannon, then a beginner could get the basic tactical ideas fairly easily. This could be really exciting and interesting, if they do it right.

Hopefully, they're also modeling things like the way you can tack faster (change direction across the wind) when running downwind, vs. heading upwind where the ship has to use momentum to pull the bow across the wind. But again, if the AI captain can handle this, then all the player has to know is that the ship turns faster running downwind than trying to cut across the wind. I'm hoping the game is this fine-grained in sail tactics, but I guess we'll see.

Drisos
08-24-2007, 11:55
Can't say I'm overly enthusiastic.:balloon2: :wall:

Nostalgia forbids me to like any new releases except STW2. ~;)

gregori99
08-24-2007, 13:13
Too early to say. Will there be too much emphasis on graphics at the expense of gameplay, like in Rome?

Not my favourite era, I prefer the ancient world. Can I suggest an Ancients mod already? Think galleys, ramming, greek fire, all those sail designs you could have :laugh4:

Rodion Romanovich
08-24-2007, 14:21
If they make it what I wrote in thw wishlist thread, it'll be a great game!

If they don't make it like I said it, I'm convinced it will not be very fun :grin:

Charge
08-24-2007, 19:44
Not happy at all. Don't like this era.
But I'm will be very surprised if in ETW will be no bugs, so 6th TW (which I guess is ROME) should be less "buggy" and more advanced.

Freedom Onanist
08-24-2007, 23:52
Best yet!

pevergreen
08-25-2007, 00:09
A new engine will be a good thing for TW. As stated in the interview, military and diplomacy were apart, so they would conflict.

DisruptorX
08-25-2007, 15:09
Diplomacy was so broken in previous total war games that I never even bothered to use it. Unlike in, say, the Civilization games, where there's tangible benefits.

Improved diplomacy will help prevent early blitz from being the only tactic.

NagatsukaShumi
08-25-2007, 15:15
To be honest, I am happier they are going elsewhere this time, because I would hate to see the TW series just turn into revolutionary sequel after sequel.

trickydicky
08-25-2007, 15:53
I for one am glad they are going for this era. It should freshen up the series, and attract a bigger fan base.
The scope available from this time period is massive. I just hope they concentrate on getting the engine and diplomacy right, and not just focusing on the graphics and eye candy.
Assuming they get it right the game is going to :thrasher:

The Spartan (Returns)
08-25-2007, 16:03
Yea I love the idea, muskets, cavalry, and cannons, something I always tried to play with in M2, now it's realized.

I hope like in Patriot, the music is played by actual drummers, and flute players, as you fade out the battlefield you can't hear the music or just barely, makes it more interesting when your hiding cavalry far away in the forests.

Naval battles and new graphics is what we were all expecting with the new Total War... I could go on...

challengethesea
08-25-2007, 23:43
I love it. I think people underestimate the depth of strategy in this era. If CA does this right, it should be great. I can't wait. I hope, however, that certain things are dramatically improved upon. It would be nice to at least see some implementation of the economic warfare (Continental System), even if not incredibly detailed. Also, diplomacy and AI, of course. Diplomacy, for one, should actually have some meaning. At any rate, I remain cautiously optimistic.

I am really looking forward to bayonet charges...
And ships of the line duking it out on the high seas...and frigates...
This has the potential to be great. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Geoffrey S
08-25-2007, 23:52
Looking forward to it. It keeps CA working hard at revolutionising the series, and I love the period. I find it a shame there seem to be so many misunderstandings about the warfare of the time: things like worrying about boring tactics, one volley killing entire lines, it not being a time of bravery and great leaders... folks, it's that much and more, and I'm excited that there is finally a chance of a good game to do it justice. And if not, I'm sure mods can do an awful lot with the new engine (American Revolution anyone?!).

christof139
08-27-2007, 18:33
Here we go...

I don't doubt (in fact I know) that the "barbarians" were not idiots and did use formations etc... However, it would have been large bodies of men moving forwards, not discrete units moving around in formation from one end of the battle field to another. They never achieved that kind of flexibility on a consistent basis, precisely because their society was more fractured. Which isn't a negative reflection on them, just a fact of their differences. They never centralised their power structures to the point were they could impose standard training, drills, logistics, uniforms, weaponry, etc... These are all things the TW battle format needs and fits better to the period in question. It wasn't able to comfortably represent the diversity of the barbarian faction in my eyes is all.

We love to go a wandering, a wandering we do!!! Wanderlust!!

Yes, they didn't have as small nor as many units as the Romans, but they did have units and smaller Gallic village units trained at their villages as a small unit but when war occurred they were grouped together in larger masses that were less manueverable than the Roman unit formations, but they could manuever, just not in as disciplined and flexible manner as the Romans. Gallic culture and craftsmanship, particularily metal working where they actually could suprass the Romans, government, etc. was also very advanced.

So, naval battles with Gallic Venettii warships and Assyrian, Phoenecian, Roman and Greek etc. galleys and later Cogs and Dromons and Dhows etc.all the way from 500BC to 1500AD would be very nice to incorporate into a tactical game engine. :laugh4: I'm sure Asterix would also appreciate this.

Makes sense to me, since STW, MTW, and RTW series exist it would be easy to make a tactical naval combat add-on for any of these games.

For Gunpowder Era from 1500 through about 1870 would be nice.

Who knows, I might buy it if I can sail on the Great Lakes and bother the British in Canada around 1812 or so, and also some Candians as an afterthought of course, but why oh why not extend ETW to at least the end of the ACW in 1865?? :wall:

So it adds 1 more GB to the game, so what. Phooey and phrrrrttt.

Chris

CaesarAugustus
08-27-2007, 19:21
As much as I'd like to see Rome 2, the gunpowder-oriented 1700s are a good choice and should change the battles dramatically. Adding naval combat is a nice sweetner to the game as well. On the con side, i think many fans (myself included) will miss sending in melee infantry and watching them hack apart eachother with swords. But we have 4 other TW games for that.:yes:

Geoffrey S
08-27-2007, 19:47
On the con side, i think many fans (myself included) will miss sending in melee infantry and watching them hack apart eachother with swords. But we have 4 other TW games for that.:yes:
QFT.

Dutch_guy
08-27-2007, 19:58
After all the fuss that was made about M2TW and what we actually got, why would anyone be expecting much from this idea? M2TW is still not fixed.

.......Orda

I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.

That being said, I think we're all expecting so much from this idea because a lot of us consider M2 to be an improvement over Rome and Barbarian Invasion. Those people, myself included, are hopeful that line of improvement will continue, and manifest itself in ETW and the mods and games after that.

:balloon2:

Xehh II
08-27-2007, 20:37
Although I would rather have RTW2 but any TW game with navel bttles is a good thing.

Zenicetus
08-27-2007, 21:49
I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.

Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

geala
08-27-2007, 22:13
I voted for "no" cause I would have preferred a game in the ancient times. But E:TW has nevertheless great potential. Firstly: the battlefield mechanisms of TW fits perfectly with the very tactically 18th c. warfare. But in the end success depends on the details.

The fighting mechanisms must be correct. I have some concerns but hope the best. A few examples: Will cavalry make the same unrealistic ram-like attacks through the lines as in the other TW games? Will the cavalry sometimes stop because of fear of fire? Will units be beaten and flee by certain charges although only a small part of soldiers is actually killed? Will infantry sometimes (or often) break before contact when attacked with a bajonet charge, as in reality? Or will there be inevitably hand to hand fighting? Will attacks sometimes falter with only one decisive salvo from the near (so you have to decide when to fire)? And so on. Moral should be the most important thing. A deep analysis of black powder warfare is a necessity for the devs.

Naval warfare sounds exiting. The feature I'm most interested in. I hope they will do it right. Battling with sailing ships is no magical affair but again a lot of mistakes could be made. I hope both for frigate warfare and man o war battles.

Another point is siege warfare and the use of villages and buildings in battle. It should f.e. be possible to fire from cover. Field fortifications and trenches in sieges should be used. Certain harbour cities should be conquered by starvation only if a blockade of the sea is done the same time. ...

And diplomacy was very important in the timeframe and finally must work in the game.

caravel
08-27-2007, 22:14
Another new TW game... I still haven't bought the last one...

You can also bet on it that some people will have their pallet load of Osprey books at the ready to use as hard historical evidence of musket diameters or the type of fabric used in the voluminous pantaloons of the era... I can hardly contain my anticipation.

:drama3:

christof139
08-28-2007, 10:23
The Ospreyettes and WFP (Wargaming Fashion Police)!!! Terrifying!!!

Chris

NagatsukaShumi
08-28-2007, 11:08
Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

Lusted, a modder who now works for CA, has already released his own unofficial unit rebalancing patch over on the Total War Center as that thread states.

Games cost, at the most, 30 pounds for the PC and to be honest, Total Wars are worth the price FAR more then the usual "top of the charts" PC Games that are out.

What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up :laugh4:

Trax
08-28-2007, 13:38
Will infantry sometimes (or often) break before contact when attacked with a bajonet charge, as in reality? Or will there be inevitably hand to hand fighting?

Giving the frighten_foot attribute to all infantry would make it more likely to happen. The soldiers often endured horrible punishment from distance but were likely to break without even crossing the bayonets when receiving a charge or forced make a charge.

caravel
08-28-2007, 13:52
What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up :laugh4:
I'm particularly looking forward to the "Empire No 2 was vitally important during that period and their troops were eliter than yours and if they hadn't lost the war against Empire No 1 then we can safely say that they would have won the war against Empire No 1 so they really, really, really need to be in the game and if they're not then it's because CA is crap <insert quotes and images followed by accounts of where Empire No 2 almost won battle a or won battle b... but sort of didn't><insert insults><insert moderator edits>" threads.

doc_bean
08-28-2007, 20:54
I'm happy with the decision. I never got M2:TW, partially because when i was playing the demo it gave me too much of a deja vu feeling.

However, I mainly didn't buy M2:TW since it didn't seem to promise massive AI improvements, neither on the battlefield nor on the strategic map. I could enjoy the game with not-quite-up-to-medieval-level battles, but decent strategic AI for a game like this is essential.

I think the concept has potential, but CA will have to sell the game to me on more than just concept. Tons of TBS games have pretty good to great AI, and are often more complex than a TW game, so CA better work on that department.

Also, I want the battles to look good from a distance, I don't really care for what they look like zoomed in since i'll rarely use that mode.

Noir
08-28-2007, 21:29
Good point about the sprites - the ones in RTW were bad enough, but the distance filter that distinguished half decent sprites from blurry mess was another visual fiasco of M2TW.

Also worth mentioning is the extreme simplicity of gemeplay depth of TW in the campaign that essentially is the STW unify/conquer all, formula reapplied over and over in periods and situations were it does not really belong without any true addition in strategic depth. For instance country/kingdom logistics and campaign logistics remain mostly out of TW although in most cases they dictated conquest potential, military technology and approach as well as external politics. Some mechanics like the recruiting pools were inserted in M2TW that have potential to represent such things.

Experience suggests that the most advertised new TW features are the ones that offer a wow of 20 minutes and become the unsolved gameplay spoiler for ever and ever after that. The "sieges and artillery" in MTW, the "3D men and horse jumps" in RTW, and the "battle animations & finishing moves" in M2TW.
Half baked features that appeal to the eye and become gameplay killers since they pay little respect to the ways of the AI or to gameplay or to what the engine can support reliably from a gameplay perspective.

Naval and land battles will be a whole new world in this period that will need to be balanced gameplay wise and possibly not in the same way on top of develloping a new engine..

Anyway, by the time people will be bored with it they'll probably announce a newer, flashier and even more euphemeral game that will also be a "brilliant" idea to make, i guess.

Mikeus Caesar
08-28-2007, 21:34
I'm happy with the decision made. Although if i'd had it my way, i would have selected 1900 - 1945 as the new time period. I personally believe that there is a chance for good gameplay there, regardless of what some of you think of the period.

JeromeGrasdyke
08-28-2007, 21:38
I'm glad that overall people seem to like the choice of setting :) We thought that it was time to break some new ground with the series, and since we were re-architecting the engine for the new hardware generation it was a good opportunity to do something a bit different. The early gunpowder era opens a lot of doors, and for naval battles too, the 1700's is *the* time and the perfect way to introduce the new game segment. It gives us some great material to draw inspiration from... expect to see Patrick O'Brian and Hornblower references aplenty.

On the gameplay side, I should mention that we're not approaching this as a missile-only battle game, as some people seem to be fearing. Charges and melee were still an important part of infantry fighting in this period, and a good balance between gunpowder, missile and melee is where we want to be - especially since some of the non-European factions lag behind a bit in terms of technology. The cavalry charge won't be the dominant factor anymore, but it will still be significant if used properly.

As far as the battle AI is concerned, we started from the best of the previous AI's available at the time development began (which was the RTW:BI one, for those who are interested), and have rebuilt it in the new codebase while adding several key new features such as goal-based planning and improved time awareness - for the first time in the TW series the battle AI will be projecting your unit's positions forward in time and evaluating your possible strategies at a high level in realtime, somewhat akin to what a chess program does, which will make it a lot better at understanding what the player is trying to do and making countermoves in time. We're still in full flow in the development, but it's starting to show some good promise.

It's always fun to lift the covers a little from what we've been working on, and hopefully that puts a few fears to rest.

Devastatin Dave
08-28-2007, 21:39
I think this is the right direction. There will be more depth now that their will be actual naval battles and the use of tactics in this realm thrill me because I've always felt cheated in the naval "battles" in RTW, MTW, and MTW2.

Now that's not to say I wouldn't have LOVED STW2!!! Man that would be sweet.

I believe that this will be great and most of us will be pleased with the latest product.

Soulforged
08-29-2007, 01:07
I'd rather have one car with four wheels than two with two wheels less...

When I saw the announcement of this game I thought it was such a disrespect to the people who bought Medieval II for starters that I was shocked only by that. But for what I'm witnessing on this thread, the producers won't get the response they should be getting, since the community accepts this with open arms. I'll remain a nay sayer unless the next games proves to be an step forward and not an step back like Medieval II, wich aside for a graphic update, didn't get any better over Rome.

Sarmatian
08-29-2007, 03:21
Well to me it's seems like CA is trying to make a Space Shuttle while they couldn't make a car work as it should.

The era itself is interesting, they new tactical and strategic possibilities seem nice, but adding naval battles when they couldn't make land working as intended... It could be that they have bitten of more than they can chew...

If we judge by how M2TW didn't improve much on RTW, if anything, it introduced new problems and bugs than ETW could be a serious mistake. New engine, new type of units, naval battles... I don't know...

If we get land battles like they were in M2TW and naval battles that are equally buggy, than all this has been for nothing.

I really hope I'm wrong and that CA UK will finally make a finished game. Good luck...

pevergreen
08-29-2007, 07:44
Just a warning to all who post from here onwards. This thread is getting close to CA bashing. I do not like CA bashing. The Moderators and Admins do not like CA bashing. Please do not bash CA.

:bow:

doc_bean
08-29-2007, 07:53
IBut for what I'm witnessing on this thread, the producers won't get the response they should be getting, since the community accepts this with open arms.

Honestly, I got so tired of all the complaining after RTW that i hope we won't go there again. Most people who bought M2TW did so after knowing what Rome was like, that it had the same engine and they had the chance to play a demo (which told me enough).



I'll remain a nay sayer unless the next games proves to be an step forward and not an step back like Medieval II, wich aside for a graphic update, didn't get any better over Rome.

Same for me, though I'm mostly concerned about the strategic layer, the way it was done in Rome killed all the fun of the game for me, and M2TW didn't appear to do it any better, so I stayed clear of that game. I'll ask around on the Org what people think of the game after it's released and base my decision on that.

Sarmatian
08-29-2007, 08:01
Just a warning to all who post from here onwards. This thread is getting close to CA bashing. I do not like CA bashing. The Moderators and Admins do not like CA bashing. Please do not bash CA.

:bow:

Bashing is a no-no. But criticism, expecially argumented and constructive criticism is a good thing.

M2TW looks more like a RTW mod than a new game. Considering that they had an engine (RTW) and most of the research done (MTW), they way they made the game is a disgrace for such an acclaimed company like CA is, IMHO.

I hope that ETW will be taken much more seriously.

Please don't ask that we all shower CA with praises they don't deserve. It'll be counter-productive. I'm sending happy thoughts and hope that they will learn from their mistakes and make a game that will make gamers happy and which will in turn earn them good money, which is the point of every game.

If we're gonna limit ourselves only to praises than there is no point in this forum...

pevergreen
08-29-2007, 08:06
Constructive Critisism, yes. Bashing like we had for M2TW (The only one i was here for) is no. Everything so far is ok, but it is tinkering on the edge. A few trolls can do some damage.

Zatoichi
08-29-2007, 13:02
I'm happy enough about the new era, I would liked for it to have started earlier though, so we could have had some good old English Civil War action with pike and musket.

Still, it gets my thumbs up as a good direction for CA to take, especially with the inclusion of naval warfare.

Fisherking
08-29-2007, 13:52
Yes I am satisfied with the era, but as with the previous post, I would have loved seeing it start earlier too. Say around 1520 LOL

Geoffrey S
08-29-2007, 14:52
Constructive Critisism, yes. Bashing like we had for M2TW (The only one i was here for) is no. Everything so far is ok, but it is tinkering on the edge. A few trolls can do some damage.
Don't worry, I'm sure the mods would step in if anything bad were to crop up. Thus far, I've only seen legitimate answers and opinions with regards to the opening question of this topic.

pevergreen
08-29-2007, 22:23
Yup!

If anything does pop up Tosa can expect a PM. :shifty:

HarunTaiwan
08-30-2007, 07:47
Anyone here ever play Sid Meier's Gettysburg?

If this game is like that on the battle map, coupled with a campaign map, and naval battles, it will be awesome.

doc_bean
08-30-2007, 10:31
Yup!

If anything does pop up Tosa can expect a PM. :shifty:

Off topic: I think you're better off just clikcing report post on the offending post, that way Tosa won't get spammed quite so much.

pevergreen
08-30-2007, 10:44
Oh probably. But it would send a PM to Tosa anyway. He is the only moderator here right now.

doc_bean
08-30-2007, 11:41
Oh probably. But it would send a PM to Tosa anyway. He is the only moderator here right now.

Hmm you're right, I thought this forum had its own moderators already.

pevergreen
08-30-2007, 11:42
I havent seen Tosa on lately...:shrug: Too busy right now?

Durallan
08-30-2007, 12:37
hmmm,

+ Ability to build empires
+ Sea Battles!
+Yarr! Pirates!
+Rum!
+Ability to build empires
+New engine (M2TW engine wouldn't be able to handle rum.)
+Graphics look good
+AI sounds promising

-promised this before
-gonna cost us money! (when we are about to get kingdoms too)
-we now have to wait for it

I like the period, I think that it will be a good era, it should be fun, and if we can travel from the americas to australia that will make me happy.

ratbarf
09-02-2007, 21:28
Well, why are you people so angry about the modablility and all. You do realise that the majority of the players who actually play these games don't even use them? In my area I know of 15 people who actively play the total war series. They all love them to bits and guess what. Only one other person aside from myself actually uses mods that I didn't get for them. (thats right, I actually spend money to give your mods to people....) So stop being so harsh. It actually doesn't matter to the general user and if you want to mod find your own ways to do it without bothering the developer. (While I may sound it I am not anit-mod or anti org. I love most of the material you guys have put out there and will continue to play them.) I mean you actually expect them to spend hours and hours making a game completely moddable for you? That actually costs them money you know and you should really be forced to pay for that ability. Yet you groan and whine when they don't make it as accessible as you want it. Well then go make it yourself you whiners. If you can do something about yet choose not too you have no right to complain. (I mean look at alpaca, grumpyoldman, and knight errent. They developed the tools for FREE and made the game moddable on their own time because they love the games. So stop your whining and learn how to program/hex edit.) I mean if you really wanted a game bug free and moddable don't buy sh*tty games and they won't make them!

Okay so now that that is out of my system I will continue.

As for those who say this era is not tactical you have not played NTW2. I mean aside from basic hammer and anvil tactics and flanking was the medieval period all that tactical? The ancient time period was I agree but not nearly to the extent that musket era was. Read the chapter in the book SHOGUN when john Blackthorne decribes one of the musket battle he saw in the netherlands? They were insanely complicated and required immense tactical skill and inniative to win. Comparing this era to the other two mentioned is like comparing chess to checkers. Sure they are both enjoyable strategy games but one does not have the depth and lgoical reasoning of the other.

This period probably has the best naval battles in history except possibly the battles of the classical period and possibly some asain stuff that I don't know about. I mean, who hasn't had dreams of attacking a spanish galleon and using superior speed and skill to outwit her massive amounts of both men and firepower?

I have complete trust in CA to deliver another great game that is a sweet and liberating choice when compared to its ultimately drab and pathetic counterparts in the RTS genre. (Excludin EU, Civilization, and Age of Sail) Seriously, how many manic yet tactically limiting basebilders can you handle before that thirty story window starts looking awfully inviting.

My Wants.

I would like the sailing game to be good, balanced within reason and able to live up to its real-life counterpart.

Good diplomacy but the diplomacy from Medieval would be fine.

Mass battles but with the UI to go with it. Don't make it so that it looks nice but you can't control the 30 000 men you just invested millions of pounds on...

Oh, and a Gatling gun..... That would be good.

Now the above (and below) statement/s do not apply to everyone or even the majority. But seriously, some of you people need to unclench your buttholes and start passing real stools like the rest of us.

Soulforged
09-02-2007, 22:04
-promised this beforeExactly...

SaFe
09-03-2007, 11:22
I've read the Diplomacy from Medieval2 is fine?:wall:

Oh my god - with this diplomacy during a age of important diplomatic decissions we are lost in senseless battles.
Why a campaign i ask - we could also play a handful battles then.

Gustav II Adolf
09-04-2007, 12:12
Hurray!!!

I just found out about the game. This gunpowder setting has been my dream since shogun. I cant wait to get it!! :2thumbsup:

angelviper
09-05-2007, 14:01
it will be best exciting expectation that i have ever made in total war series.
i love the period warfare in which gunpowder and smoke filled in the battle, the style, the gorgeous uniform, the verbal orders in the air..ect. Now i hope that CA will finish the development and release it in the market without a trouble.

Divinus Arma
09-11-2007, 03:39
I am more excited than any other title to date. The possibility for one of the greatest games ever created is at the feet of CA.

Edit: On second thought, now that they are controlled by SEGA, I should probably be prepared to be dissapointed like I was for M2TW. Not to be negative, but that was all flash and no substance. I played it for a month and have barely touched it since. Every faction was virtually the same and the unit selection was horrific. Sure it looked pretty, but who cares what it looks like if it plays like an arcade game?

Sorry for the downer, I just don't want to get my hopes up. I'm going to keep my expectations low and plan for CA to have their creative hands tied by SEGA.

Caius
09-11-2007, 03:47
Our dream is done.

In years and years, we will be able to do a WII mod!Without airplane, but something is something!

Ozzman1O1
09-27-2007, 00:52
what about a tw about native americans,not like kingdoms,but from southern canada to northern south america,i got the name,TRIBAL TOTAL WAR!!!:clown:

Lord Winter
09-27-2007, 00:56
Our dream is done.

In years and years, we will be able to do a WII mod!Without airplane, but something is something!

Starts the chant trenches trenches trenches trenches

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-27-2007, 14:48
Count me in as a "Not Sure".

Not crazy about this period of history....but then again, CA couldn't keep retreading old ground (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) could they?


Could make a STW 2 and RTW2 with a brand new expasion pack for each one of course. But THat would be somewhat boring. We already have RTW that came out not to long ago. We still have STW that still somewhat poular. So I think they should wait and come out with 1 or 2 new games before they Do a RTW2 or (the one they should do first) STW2.




I'm not sure. MP Wise, it's looks good, with the ladders and rankings, what i been waiting for. But They always promise to make MP better with each game/expasion and they never do. Comee out with Patches that fix 1 or 2 MP ploblems and leave the rest go.

I'm not sure how the Sea Battles would go. what the tactics? Line your ships up, FIre, and just wait? Can you get to board,or no? can you see the ship sink and the bodies foating around? I mean,:dizzy2:

Charge
09-27-2007, 16:23
So I think they should wait and come out with 1 or 2 new games before they Do a RTW2 or (the one they should do first) STW2.
That is too long! :dizzy: STW2 (or what ever else) after empire and RTW2 after it in 2012 will be optimal variant, I guess. As I'm not a STW fun I'm not so interested in 2 future TWs, but even 8 years (!) waiting for next Rome is too long for me!
Can you imagine - I was 14 years old then played Rtw first time, and will be 22 y-old then Rtw2 comes out...

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-27-2007, 16:54
That is too long! :dizzy: STW2 (or what ever else) after empire and RTW2 after it in 2012 will be optimal variant, I guess. As I'm not a STW fun I'm not so interested in 2 future TWs, but even 8 years (!) waiting for next Rome is too long for me!
Can you imagine - I was 14 years old then played Rtw first time, and will be 22 y-old then Rtw2 comes out...


Yea, but you think people would get sick of doing STW2 and RTW2?



RTW and RTW2. Wow, big deal, same games, only better graphics and a few new options for the latter! :inquisitive:


I want NEW TW games. Yea, it nice to make re-makes, but I want NEW, not re-makes.

Charge
09-27-2007, 17:14
Generally it doesn't matter re- or not re-making. We want engine improvements with new features, new abilities, improved gameplay. Re making - M2TW after RTW. This is a remaking.
I would sent this empire to hell if there are no improvements in gameplay. Actually it has it, but I'll sent it anyway cause I'm Rome fan :grin:
You seriously think that in Rome2 will be nothing except better graphics and few new options? It can be absolutely new game, if CA will manage this. And for most its a best time setting...

Ozzman1O1
09-27-2007, 20:56
IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:egypt:

Noir
09-27-2007, 21:01
Better do it this way Ozzman101:

IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:rtwno:

:logic:

;)

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-27-2007, 21:06
I prefer STW 2 over RTW2, STW was way better. But This isn't the place for that debate, correct?

Whacker
09-27-2007, 22:34
Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

Csargo
09-27-2007, 23:22
Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8374/1190912662013ij2.jpg

I never understood you...

Ozzman1O1
09-28-2007, 20:12
Better do it this way Ozzman101:

IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:rtwno:

:logic:

;)
where did you get the ceaser smiley?
and shogun sucked,those dum ningas looked like gay peaces of paper.and like 2 factions!

Csargo
09-28-2007, 20:55
:rtwno:

Omanes Alexandrapolites
09-28-2007, 21:01
where did you get the ceaser smiley?The code for the Caesar smiley shown is ":rtwno:". You can find the codes for more usable smilies here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/misc.php?do=getsmilies&editorid=vB_Editor_001). To show them in your posts, simply copy and paste the provided codes into the posting area.
...and shogun sucked,those dum ningas looked like gay peaces of paper...Graphical content isn't necessary everything Ozzman - I have played quite a few older games recently, which have contained little more than 2D sprites. Despite this, they still have retained my interest for an as long, if not longer, period of time as some of the more modern and graphically rich games.

For me at least, graphical effects are a nice addition, but other factors, such as immersion, depth, AI and atmosphere, are much more important and can make or break the game itself. After all, in a game purely comprised of high-quality effects and eye-candy, once all the graphics have been seen, there is often nothing left to hold the interest of the player.
...and like 2 factions!There was a lower number of factions in Shogun compared to the later games, as I remember it was a total of eight, but I found that it didn't really detract from the overall gameplay experience.

Ozzman1O1
09-29-2007, 13:33
LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-30-2007, 00:22
LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)


More Stragety then RTW :inquisitive:

TosaInu
09-30-2007, 00:36
LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)

Skirmishers can be put on hold. A few good volleys can rout cavalry.

KukriKhan
09-30-2007, 16:18
Mark me down as a "yes". I thought they would return to Asia, but I'm willing to wait for that, confident that it's in the pipeline of development, somewhere.

Meanwhile, gunpowder and naval will introduce new challenges to me, the player - always good fun.

On the downside, it's probably gonna require a hardware update for my 3-year old rig. So, this $60 game will cost me @$2,000 in one-time cashflow.

Charge
09-30-2007, 17:10
Prices are growing unstoppable...

Admetos
09-30-2007, 23:51
I've got to agree with you KukriKhan, I haven't been able to upgrade to play M2:TW yet, so I've got no chance of playing this yet. Overall though, after playing Napoleonic 2, which I must say is fantastic, I realise what a great era this is. Its also nice to have a change and have to develop tactics for gunpowder and the naval battles look amazing.

Boyar Son
10-01-2007, 03:35
yes!

cant wait for RTW2!

Noir
10-01-2007, 12:29
I can't wait for MTW3

Charge
10-01-2007, 13:09
Oooo! You already have two games - one best graphics and one most qualitative, and we have only one with crappy realization . So you'd better wait couple of years... Firstly RTW2! :charge::charge::charge:

Mouzafphaerre
10-01-2007, 13:21
.
I already expressed my delight about finally including true naval battles in TW. Well, the best era for naval theme is XVI. through XIX. centuries, second half of which has been announced for the upcoming Empire. So, yes, I'm happy. :yes:

:rtwyes:

A post-medieval game could better be considered as the next title -presumably- using the same engine. Or an expansion maybe... ~;)
.

caravel
10-01-2007, 16:05
I can't wait for TROFB2TW

Noir
10-01-2007, 16:09
Originally posted by MightyCambyses
I can't wait for TROFB2TW

That's the spirit

Ozzman1O1
10-01-2007, 20:32
rtw2 is definitly the way to go,i always liked tw games beacause they only use bows and shields(they have guns but thats ruining the tradition,part of why i HATE shuogu:clown: :hmg: n

Csargo
10-01-2007, 20:34
So, I herd you liek mudkips... (PS:Shogun) MTW was the best game evar!!!!

Aracnid
10-02-2007, 00:28
I voted yes, but mostly because it is my favourite era of the realistic ones. I really think, and I may be wrong in this that a game with TW scale would work brilliantly in the WW1 or WW2 era I would love to fight the battle of Kursk or Verdun not with 3 or 4 tanks and 20 infantrymen but with 500 tanks and 10,000 men, with the whole load of artillery and everything else. I know its probably never going to happen and I should instead pray for a mod of Supreme Commander in that ear but still.

However as I doubt my dream will ever come true yippe for Empire Total War the closest I'll ever get.:beam:

Boyar Son
10-02-2007, 03:33
So, I herd you liek mudkips... (PS:Shogun) MTW was the best game evar!!!!

No, RTW2 will be the best game ever!!!!

(is that "talk in ur own dialect" I see there from Vuk's thread?)

Csargo
10-02-2007, 03:41
No..

HarunTaiwan
10-02-2007, 10:11
I will wait about 1 year to buy the game after its release. That's when the final patch comes out, and the modders have fixed the other problems, and made it slightly enjoyable.

But I do think the era will be great.

I will be comparing it to Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

Freedom Onanist
10-02-2007, 12:19
Absolutely, the best era for the game mechanics and one of the most interesting in history combined - excellent!

Tightly drilled formations, marching in order against other similar enemies. I have always felt uncomfortable about "units" of medieval spearmen marching around, let alone bands of barbarians doing the same thing. The Romans did, but many of their opponents didn't and I feel CA have always had to compromise with how the units look and feel on the battlefield. In ETW, it will at least look right.

As for the setting, it is the time when the world emerged as it is today. Too often it is ignored in school (probably becasue it is not PC). Not only did nations begin to emerge as we see them now, but political thought, progress, innovation, Reason starting to banish superstition and religion, etc... The Enlightenment - you can't get better than that.

Henry707
10-02-2007, 12:24
Hi All,

I rushed out & bought it - I'm now back playing MTW2. I do like all the new units & maps but I realised I love the big map scenario - I enjoy many of the mods which expand the map.

Personal choice really but smaller map=unhappy henry!!

Henry

Freedom Onanist
10-02-2007, 14:39
Hi All,

I rushed out & bought it - I'm now back playing MTW2. I do like all the new units & maps but I realised I love the big map scenario - I enjoy many of the mods which expand the map.

Personal choice really but smaller map=unhappy henry!!

Henry
hmmm.... You rushed out and bought it? Do you know something none of us do?

The game isn't released till next year.

You sure you're not talking about Kingdoms TW? That's just been released.

Ozzman1O1
10-02-2007, 20:15
havent you guys always wanted to see a rtw sea battle:inquisitive:

lancer63
10-03-2007, 23:54
No, RTW2 will be the best game ever!!!!

(is that "talk in ur own dialect" I see there from Vuk's thread?)

MTW2 may have better graphics and more developed trade and diplomatic system but when playability comes to scene it can't even come near MTW.
You'll never have a 6 hour battle (in real world time) defending a forest against hordes and hordes,like 4 thou, of mongols and win! That you could do in MTW and can't now.
And voted yes. Napoleonic warfare is cool and untouched by CA till now. + will look forward to those new medieval mods in ETW.

Martok
10-04-2007, 02:29
hmmm.... You rushed out and bought it? Do you know something none of us do?

The game isn't released till next year.

You sure you're not talking about Kingdoms TW? That's just been released.
Methinks he was referring to Shogun (hence the smaller map comment).

Ozzman1O1
10-06-2007, 16:05
the only reason i would buy a new shogun is for a cool shugon sea battle,but battles where still very small at sea at that time

S.Selim_1
10-07-2007, 02:02
just heard of ETW and i gota say i can't wait for this game..sounds soooo much fun with gunpowder age. i just hope the battles are graphical and the units more detailed and colored though :2thumbsup:

Ozzman1O1
10-07-2007, 02:12
i HEAR YA !!(cant wait for etw)

Mouzafphaerre
10-07-2007, 02:41
.
Welcome to the ORG S.Selim_1. :bow:

Any chance you're from Sultanselim? :wacko:
.

S.Selim_1
10-07-2007, 03:11
yep...just a fan of his conquests..i'm egyptian by the way:egypt:

Mouzafphaerre
10-07-2007, 03:36
.
I live in 15 minues walking distance from his tomb, which is in the neighbourhood named after himself. ~:)

But Egypt... That's a world by herself. :bow:
.

S.Selim_1
10-07-2007, 03:48
turkey..i luv turkey..i play with the turks i M2TW rather than egypt..i'm a fan of the ottoman empire..so excited to c it in ETW

Daveybaby
10-07-2007, 13:25
I really dont understand this obsession people have with getting RTW2. I dont see how it would end up that much different to the original RTW.

As for STW2, IMO the original STW is probably too small and limited a topic for a new TW game. I think it would make an excellent subject for an expansion pack of an Asia:Total War game though.

TosaInu
10-07-2007, 18:52
Hello Ozzman1O1,

Shogun sea battles may be a disappointment, unless you add say the Korean naval forces.

The Japanase seabattles were more like: tie some ships together, add some extra planking (thus creating a floating platform) and do the normal melee.

The Korean navy used artillery. There's an anekdote of a naval war between Korea and the Japan late 16th century. The samurai wanted to board, the Korean just wanted to sink ships. At some point the crew of two Japanese ships managed to throw grappling hooks to a Korean ship. The two commanders started to quarel who was allowed to board and cut each others grappling ropes. The Korean ship managed to get away.

Ozzman1O1
10-07-2007, 19:24
I really dont understand this obsession people have with getting RTW2. I dont see how it would end up that much different to the original RTW.

As for STW2, IMO the original STW is probably too small and limited a topic for a new TW game. I think it would make an excellent subject for an expansion pack of an Asia:Total War game though.
WHATS WITH ALL THE NEW ASIAN TWS?!

Daveybaby
10-07-2007, 22:08
Sorry, i didnt quite catch that. Could you speak up a bit please?

Ozzman1O1
10-07-2007, 22:51
im just saying this (asian total war) thing wont be as fun,name a famouse ancient asian battle,im waiting

TosaInu
10-08-2007, 01:29
Sekigahara.

seireikhaan
10-08-2007, 06:23
im just saying this (asian total war) thing wont be as fun,name a famouse ancient asian battle,im waiting
Well, that's a rather absurd question, considering that the concept of 'famous' is a relativist social construct is completely unprovable.

Freedom Onanist
10-08-2007, 08:52
Well, that's a rather absurd question, considering that the concept of 'famous' is a relativist social construct is completely unprovable.Apparently Oz is 10, "relativist social construct" might be a bit OTT.

Oz - It depends on your point of view.

Anyway, you're right there is a vocal minority who constantly clamour for a Far Eastern setting. I think there are two kinds of people in that minority. Firstly, people who genuinely are interested in the area an its military history. Good for them, there is no real reason why there shouldn't be a "Asian" TW. Except for the secong group. These in my opinion are actually more interested in some kind of Fantasy TW. All they want is a setting that would really let their limited imaginations rip. So, you can have Chinese machine gun Xbows, Bruce Lee as a special agent (?), warrior monks with the ablility to slow time, etc... ad nauseam (till you puke).

Daveybaby
10-08-2007, 11:53
This 'second group' you speak of... that's a new one on me. I dont think i've ever seen any evidence that it exists. Are you sure about that? Or did i miss something? LINKS PLZ.

Personally i think an ATW would be a great idea, primarily because it would be something new, as opposed to just churning out remakes of the previous games.

As for fantasy total war: that gets my vote too. Thinking more dragons ogres and elves than made up asian stuff though. Master of Magic: Total war is what i want really.

Charge
10-08-2007, 14:42
Nothing new. All the same. Just another terrain and factions, where you see something new?

Ozzman1O1
10-08-2007, 19:47
maybe a time the same as the last samuria would work,when the british traded in asia,only good asian war time,where there were great sea battles

Csargo
10-09-2007, 05:47
Nothing new. All the same. Just another terrain and factions, where you see something new?

3d naval battles, earth walls(trenches?), controlling buildings, etc etc.

Freedom Onanist
10-09-2007, 10:23
This 'second group' you speak of... that's a new one on me. I dont think i've ever seen any evidence that it exists. Are you sure about that? Or did i miss something? LINKS PLZ.

Personally i think an ATW would be a great idea, primarily because it would be something new, as opposed to just churning out remakes of the previous games.

As for fantasy total war: that gets my vote too. Thinking more dragons ogres and elves than made up asian stuff though. Master of Magic: Total war is what i want really.
Depends what you want. I think one of the main selling points of the TW series to date has been that it is rooted(ish) in reality.

The second group. The games are developed by and aimed at a Western audience, who are for the most part ignorant of eastern history. It seems to be treated like some kind of fantasy lalaland, where "cool" and BS are more valued than prosaic reality. Portaying a "samurai" as a fallible person rather than some kind of super human martial artist seems to be impossible, hence their desire for an Eastern setting - patronising. CA are susceptible to it - the super samurai guy in Shogun who could take on a whole formation by himself.

TosaInu
10-09-2007, 14:20
maybe a time the same as the last samuria would work,when the british traded in asia,only good asian war time,where there were great sea battles

Hello Ozzman1O1,

I'm not sure how large scale the battles were between the European factions that time (~1850), wasn't Englands (USA?) naval power pretty sealed there already?

There was no Asian naval force. It was around the time Japan started to build one (some ships were built in The Netherlands).

Furious Mental
10-09-2007, 16:35
I would love a medieval TW game in East Asia.

Freedom Onanist
10-09-2007, 17:12
(Copied from the TWC from myself. If you go over there the bullet points are links - can't be bothered to get it to work here as well)

I think the game mechanics (firearms, naval battles, etc..) are setting themselves up nicely to delve into the 19th century and its many misunderstandings. In fact I think the mechanics lend themselves to this era and style of fighting much better than any other (hope so anyway).

1810s

* South American revolutions

1820s

* 1820: Liberia founded by the American Colonization Society for freed American slaves.
* 1821-27: Greece becomes the first country to break away from the Ottoman Empire after the Greek War of Independence.
* 1823-87: The British Empire annexed Burma (now called Myanmar) after three Anglo-Burmese Wars.
* 1826-28: After the final Russo-Persian War, the Persian Empire took back territory lost to Russia from the previous war.
* 1825-28: The Argentina-Brazil War results in the independence of Uruguay.
* Portuguese Civil War, 1828-1834

1830s

* 1830: France invades and occupies Algeria.
* 1830: The Belgian Revolution in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
* 1830: Greater Colombia dissolved and the nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama took its place.
* Polish Rebellion 1830-1831
* 1833: Slavery Abolition Act bans slavery throughout the British Empire.
* 1833-76: Carlist Wars in Spain.
* 1835-36: The Texas Revolution in Mexico resulted in the short-lived Republic of Texas.
* 1837-1901: Queen Victoria's reign is considered the apex of the British Empire and is referred to as the Victorian era.

o Many, many, many military campaigns. Read any of the Flashman books for British Military entaglements in this period. Very funny and well informed, I'd recommend them to anyone who has an inflated view of "military glory".
o First Anglo-Afghan War 1838-1842
o (First) Opium War 1839-1842
o First Anglo-Sikh War Punjab 1845-1846
o 2nd Anglo-Sikh WarPunjab 1848-1849
o 2nd Anglo-Burmese War 1852
o Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880
o Third Anglo-Burmese War 1885
o Etc...
* 1838-40: Civil war in the Federal Republic of Central America led to the foundings of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.
* 1839-51: Uruguayan Civil War
* 1839-60: After two Opium Wars, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia gained many concessions from ChinaQing Dynasty. resulting in the decline of the

1840s

* 1840: New Zealand is founded, as the Treaty of Waitangi is signed by the Maori and British.
* 1846-48: The Mexican-American War leads to Mexico's cession of much of the modern-day Southwestern United States.
* E : Matiner's War 1846-1849
* 1848: The Communist Manifesto published.
* 1848: Revolutions of 1848 in Europe

1850s

* 1851-64: The Taiping Rebellion in China is the bloodiest conflict of the century.
* 1854-56: Crimean War between France, the United Kingdom, the Ottoman Empire and Russia
* 1857-58: Indian Mutiny of 1857
* Franco-Austrian War 1859 (leads to the creation of the Red Cross due to the large number of casualties and lack of care)
* Spanish-Moroccan War, 1859-1860

1860s

* Garibaldi's Expedition against Sicily 1860/1861
* 1861-65: American Civil War between the Union and seceding Confederacy
* 1861-67: French intervention in Mexico
* Polish Rebellion 1863-1864
* German-Danish War 1864
* 1864-66: The Chincha Islands War was an attempt by Spain to regain its South American colonies.
* 1864-70: The War of the Triple Alliance ends Paraguayan ambitions for expansion and destroys much of the Paraguayan population.
* Guano War 1865-1866 Spain - Peru, Chile
* 1866: Austro-Prussian War results in the dissolution of the German Confederation and the creation of the North German ConfederationAustrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. and the

1870s

* 1870-71: The Franco-Prussian War
* 1877-78: The Balkans are freed from the Ottoman Empire after another Russo-Turkish War in the Treaty of Berlin.
* 1879: Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa.
* 1879-84: War of the Pacific between Peru, Bolivia and Chile.
* Pacific War 1879-1884 Chile - Peru, Bolivia

1880s

* 1880-1881: the First Boer War.
* 1884-85: The Berlin Conference signals the start of the European "scramble for Africa". Attending nations also agree to ban trade in slaves.
* 1884-85: The Sino-French War led to the formation of French Indochina.
* 1886: Russian-Circassian War ended with the defeat and the exile of many Circassians. Imam Shamil defeated.

1890s

* 1890: The Wounded Knee Massacre was the last battle in the American Indian Wars. This event represents the end of the American Old West.
* 1894-95: After the First Sino-Japanese War, China cedes Taiwan to Japan and grants Japan a free hand in Korea.
* 1895-1896: Ethiopia defeats Italy in the First Italo–Ethiopian War.
* 1898: The United States gains control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
* 1898-1900: The Boxer Rebellion in China is suppressed by an Eight-Nation Alliance.
* 1898-1902: The One Thousand Days war in Colombia breaks out between the "Liberales" and "Conservadores," culminating with the loss of Panama in 1903.
* 1899: Second Boer War
* Philippine-American War

Copperknickers
10-09-2007, 19:04
I'm happy, even though i didnt vote for it. It includes asia, so i'm happy. ALso i wasnt expecting it to include indonesia, which is a major bonus.

Ozzman1O1
10-09-2007, 21:49
Really?idonesia!I love factions that live on islans for some reason,and if theres indonesia,maybe theres Ausralia!!!:australia: :australia: :australia:

SpencerH
10-16-2007, 23:02
I hate to say it, but I very much doubt that ETW will be a game I'll play. I'm willing to look (I only play CIV and TW) but given the direction that the last two games have gone, I doubt that CA are up to the task of creating a game that will satisfy me.

Intrepid Sidekick
10-17-2007, 09:32
I hate to hear that Spencer. I'm hoping that we can prove you wrong with Empire. I'm glad that you are at least willing to wait and see what we produce.

pevergreen
10-17-2007, 11:21
Fact remains though, people will still whinge no matter what happens.

I have never found anything to lessen my enjoyment of TW games, I started with RTW.

If you dont like something in a game, mod it out, or find a mod that does it for you.

I downloaded Ultimate AI, for M2TW and i tell you, fixes everything on the campaign map. Much harder, but more enjoyable.

I am a fanatical melee fan. I will often order troops to do whatever, while watching a unit duke it off with another. Cheer on the single guy, count his kill streak etc. If i unmute my sounds, when a man gets 2 kills in a row, i play unreal tournament sound "Double Kill!" etc.

CA have lost a lot of people over the time of RTW and M2TW, but they have gained many as well. Disgruntled M2TW fans would be appeased by a patch.

On to ETW: Even though it may not be orientated as much on the melee fights as the last two games, the sea battles and the new engine will get my money.

If you dont like the time period, bad luck, they are doing this one, if you are concerned they will get something wrong, post it up. If it is to do with history, give references.

CA are willing to take help from us, as long as they can see why it is nessacery and if historical, facts to back it up.

caravel
10-17-2007, 12:01
Fact remains though, people will still whinge no matter what happens.
A bit of a generalisation, but yes there are some "whingers" though I dislike the "whinger" label because it tends to put all of those people that criticise the game into one category - i.e. naysayers and ne'er-do-wells that exist only to complain. This makes for such people's opinions being conveniently dispensed with as "whinging".

I have never found anything to lessen my enjoyment of TW games, I started with RTW.
You started with RTW, so your expectations possibly don't exceed RTW.

If you dont like something in a game, mod it out, or find a mod that does it for you.
Not everyone is a modder, and there's always limitations as to what you can mod - AI and diplomacy being among those. Generally those that frequent one of the fan forums or official forums tend to be modders and considering that the vast majority of TW players don't visit any TW related forum, they are for the most part probably not aware of existing mods/modding.

I downloaded Ultimate AI, for M2TW and i tell you, fixes everything on the campaign map. Much harder, but more enjoyable.
I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.

CA have lost a lot of people over the time of RTW and M2TW, but they have gained many as well. Disgruntled M2TW fans would be appeased by a patch.
RTW was patched up to v1.5 and is still buggy, especially in battles and sieges in particular. From what I've heard M2TW still has many of these same problems, which is why CA won't be getting my cash this time. The problem is that RTW is to date still not completely fixed. M2TW inherited many of those old problems. (CA are even effectively admitting this in the ETW blurb about the diplomatic AI and warfare AI working against each other.)

On to ETW: Even though it may not be orientated as much on the melee fights as the last two games, the sea battles and the new engine will get my money.
I have yet to see anything except eye candy screenshots of naval battles, which don't interest me in the slightest. The TW series doesn't need any more toys such as naval battles, it needs land battles to be fixed first.

If you dont like the time period, bad luck, they are doing this one, if you are concerned they will get something wrong, post it up. If it is to do with history, give references.
So you say, but anyone posting any of their "concerns" is likely to be pigeon holed into the "whinger" category.

CA are willing to take help from us, as long as they can see why it is nessacery and if historical, facts to back it up.
I disagree, historical relevance has always taken a back seat. The games are historically themed, and that's about it. If you were to push CA for a feature/faction/etc on a purely historical basis then you would probably be wasting your time. The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.

:bow:

Lusted
10-17-2007, 12:06
I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.

Campaign AI is moddable in M2TW, but not completely.

pevergreen
10-17-2007, 12:38
Thanks for your feedback Caravel, it seems as though i need to rethink my approach to some of my points.

:bow:

My main hope with this new game is the new engine. Even so, I hope the demo has more than battles, I would like to see the campaign in action before I buy.

rajpoot
11-11-2007, 07:36
The TW series doesn't need any more toys such as naval battles, it needs land battles to be fixed first.


Land battle improvement is needed, the redundance needs to be reduced aye, and that I believe is being done with the new engine and all in ETW, but that you don't need or want naval battles??!! :O !! Naval battles, I say are going to be the biggest plus point here!! A whole new dimension to the gameplay!!
I sure am waiting for ETW!!

Tony Furze
11-11-2007, 08:52
Hello all, I ve peeked in over here, as I did with M2TW just to see what was going on.

I love ships. I studied the voyages of Captain Cook, the Mutiny records of the Bounty, the discovery of Australia-all very fascinating.

But this concept for a Total War game is a bit "off". I would never have imagined the series to go this way rather than say the English Revolution (Cromwell) or the Boer War, the Zulu Uprising or the American War of Independence ("The Patriot")

Ships just dont make for : a) protagonists in a strategy game-they re exciting to manouevre, and breathtaking visually, but if you ve played ""Ïmperial Glory" you can see the limitations.
b) tactical niceties and nuances which even RTW ,I must concede, sort of allowed for.

Im only just getting to grips with MTW by playing the smaller VI map and I reckon if I can win/lose/ learn from a few more battles and campaigns, and appreciate the depth and possiblity in the game, I might-just might- be ready to go on to (and back to) Shogun Total War with its punishing AI.

I won as the Mercians the other day-not a terrifically challenging faction (and on Normal) especially when you see what other players have done and are doing, but I was really chuffed (delighted) because for once I had used all that was in the game to "earn"a victory, which actually required effort.

I think that s gone missing.

All the best.

S.Selim_1
11-11-2007, 16:10
yeah.. i want to say i'm not that exicted about naval battles..i think everyone has given this new option in ETW too much attention. obviously navy was the main source for every empire in this era for exploration and expansion but i cannot see how intresting watching ships firing at each other (and please, if u think it is intresting..just y?).

the era is just awesome. i'm a bit sad that it only last for a century but that's not CA's problem..it is history. i'm looking forward for the land battles more than any thing else. i hope they come with many ideas as possible to do in the battle field..i just dont want to see same battles over and over again.

caravel
11-12-2007, 11:05
Land battle improvement is needed, the redundance needs to be reduced aye, and that I believe is being done with the new engine and all in ETW, but that you don't need or want naval battles??!! :O !! Naval battles, I say are going to be the biggest plus point here!! A whole new dimension to the gameplay!!
I sure am waiting for ETW!!
Well IMHO I've never seen a game yet that managed to cram two types of simulation into one game successfully. For example I've never seen a superb flight sim that also included a superb MBT or helicopter sim nor have I seen a superb naval sim that included a superb submarine sim. In my experience those "bit of everything" games are jacks of all trades and masters of none. I'm even more sceptical when this is coming from a games developer that still hasn't anywhere near perfected melee land battle simulations let alone sea battles. Naval simulations involve a lot of paramters such as wind, current, fog and other weather conditions. I can't see all of this, along with the realistic shot, trajectories, windage, real cannon crews and sea conditions going into a total war game. Prove me wrong CA, instead of coming out with the usual 'it will be fun' or 'the graphics will be stunning'.

eZsolt
11-12-2007, 15:55
I think 19th century would be better,..

Lord Zimoa of Flanders
11-12-2007, 23:05
The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.

Not always, but looks seem to sell better nowadays compared to good solid AI and game play as a marketing tool. I think the latter should become more the focus in general when you design and produce a game. CA should be able with all their resources and experience to deliver both on a very high standard.

LZ

challengethesea
11-26-2007, 08:04
yeah.. i want to say i'm not that exicted about naval battles..i think everyone has given this new option in ETW too much attention. obviously navy was the main source for every empire in this era for exploration and expansion but i cannot see how intresting watching ships firing at each other (and please, if u think it is intresting..just y?).

Naval combat of the era was much more than ships just firing at each other, though I suppose that such warfare would play out a touch slower than most action-oriented types would like. I enjoy it for many reasons. Trying to get the wind on your side, that you might control the engagement, for instance. There is a great deal of planning and decision making that must occur before you actually meet with the enemy. To plan it out carefully and then watch the carnage unfold would be quite fun to me.

Just like Trafalgar, ships approaching each other in good order and an eerie quiet (from what I've read, anyways), meeting one another in a titanic bloody clash that altered history forever. I think having well simulated naval combat in this game would be a great thing. Hell, in this time period England's great strength was her navy. To relegate naval warfare to the sort of role it has had in past TW games would not do justice to this era.

Colovion
11-27-2007, 00:26
The way CA's battle AI system has worked, I get really involved in the game only to have a random glitch or uncooperative unit destroy hours of work I'd invested.

Yes, I save, but it's maddening to have to remember to save every single turn unless something goes wrong. I'm a little OCD already, so when something goes wrong and I had absolutely no way of correcting it besides hoping when I reload it for the third time that those Archers won't sally out of the city, letting the enemy in, when I told them to get up on the walls in the first place.

They're capable of putting out the quality the industry requires of them, but with such complex games as these merely the smallest problem can ruin entire campaigns.

Many times I'll get far into a campaign only to have something go wrong like defending units not cooperate with my commands, line up facing the wrong way, and my entire army and faction Heir get killed because of it. Granted this is an extreme example, but it's been what's discouraged me from buying the expansions. I was only able to play RTW once heavily modded, and that lack of confidence in the stock game led to an even more dwindled sense of enjoyment.

I'm going to give MTW2 another chance in its current state, but I'm afraid my ever tenuous loyalty to CA is stretching as taut as allowed.

and of course Orda Khan has more succinctly stated my words already~

Evil_Maniac From Mars
11-27-2007, 00:34
I'm very happy. This is, without a doubt, one of my favourite time frames in history.~:)

Colovion
11-27-2007, 00:44
I'm very happy. This is, without a doubt, one of my favourite time frames in history.~:)

ah yes, as an amendment to my post - I've always wanted to play a game that really fleshed out this period in history. I was quite disappointed with Age of Empires 3 and the way missile combat mechanics worked, I'm sure CA will make it feel more "thunderous" :2thumbsup:

adembroski
12-16-2007, 05:45
While I never would have guessed this was the direction they'd go, I am not surprised by it. It feels very natural, and I can't help but think it is the right direction to go with Total War right now.

The big question is, how far can they go in this direction? I'm not so much worried about this game- playing around with gunpowder units in Medieval has whetted my appetite enough- as what's next.

So what is next? Another rehash... Rome II, Shogun II? Personally I find the Shogun era utterly uninteresting. Someone with a very poor understanding of historical warfare said he has to suspend his disbelief when ordering a well formed group of cavalry around the battlefield, but in Shogun this is absolutely the case. As for Rome, I certainly wouldn't object to a redo, but it wouldn't be high on my priority list either.

My great hope for the Total War series is that eventually it will take the giant leap from historical combat to incorporate, even at an optional level, fantasy warfare. This would be best done as a license... Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings. While I love historically accurate warfare, there's an element of diversity of forces you can't get when everyone's human.

Matt_Lane
12-16-2007, 10:49
While I never would have guessed this was the direction they'd go, I am not surprised by it. It feels very natural, and I can't help but think it is the right direction to go with Total War right now.

The big question is, how far can they go in this direction? I'm not so much worried about this game- playing around with gunpowder units in Medieval has whetted my appetite enough- as what's next.

So what is next? Another rehash... Rome II, Shogun II? Personally I find the Shogun era utterly uninteresting. Someone with a very poor understanding of historical warfare said he has to suspend his disbelief when ordering a well formed group of cavalry around the battlefield, but in Shogun this is absolutely the case. As for Rome, I certainly wouldn't object to a redo, but it wouldn't be high on my priority list either.

My great hope for the Total War series is that eventually it will take the giant leap from historical combat to incorporate, even at an optional level, fantasy warfare. This would be best done as a license... Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings. While I love historically accurate warfare, there's an element of diversity of forces you can't get when everyone's human.

Although I wouldn't discount CA doing a fantasy title somewhere down the line I think its unlikely to be the next installment. CA tend to only develop a new gaming engine every other title. As ETW has the new engine the next game will have to recycle this so gunpowder and naval conflict are likely to be present. I don't think they can advance the series much further in time as the introduction of repeating rifles and small unit tactics doesn't suit the TW engine. My money would therefore be on a Pike & Musket period, from about where M2TW leaves off and ETW starts.

Fisherking
12-16-2007, 12:13
So you are guessing on something with the 30 years war then. That doesn't seem to have that wide an appeal except to Grognods. What ever they do I am betting on something a bit more popular in history though I doubt they will add air war if the navies work well that would be a simpler add on I think...

Quickening
12-16-2007, 12:22
Im totally uninterested in this time period to be honest but I can't blame CA for going there. It was inevitable. I once thought I could make myself appreciate the time period with Europa Universalis 3 but although I love that game the time period just doesn't appeal to me.

Id absolutely love to see Rome redone. However Im a bit concerned by the fact that agents as characters on the campaign map are apparently being phased out. Maybe Im a freak, but I love the micromanagement.

I once liked the idea of a fantasy Total War but not anymore. The market is just clogged with boring, uninspired fantasy and despite being a massive fan, Im really sick of it.
Would hate for the Total War series to go into the modern era to, or for them to do any kind of Asian Total War just because again, I have no interest in them.

To be honest, if CA went and did all the Total War games I don't want, I wouldn't care. I still have Rome and Med 2 *Hugs games*


EDIT: Actually I got Kingdoms yesterday and I LOVE it. Maybe this kind of thing could be the way forward. Maybe we could have smaller campaigns focussed on warring Greek states and such. Id love that. Like it or not, "episodic gaming" will be the future, that's my prediction.

Fisherking
12-16-2007, 12:55
Gosh I can be thick! Commercial acceptance of the next gen….Pirates & Privateers! The Caribbean in the 16th to early 18th centuries. Of course the engine has possibilities as long as they move quickly enough that the Pirate craze has not died totally.

Matt_Lane
12-16-2007, 15:45
Gosh I can be thick! Commercial acceptance of the next gen….Pirates & Privateers! The Caribbean in the 16th to early 18th centuries. Of course the engine has possibilities as long as they move quickly enough that the Pirate craze has not died totally.

I could see this being a promising expansion pack.

TWfanman
12-19-2007, 03:49
I'm very pleased with the dicison especially the garrison-able buildings this will this will make sieges more challenging and fun (hopefully they fix the AI too) and I'm all for Naval Battles, I do hope that they make the musketeers not soooo much like missile units in games past, I found my self only using them for defense and support of my infantry. still i CAN NOT wait!!! :2thumbsup:

Frederick the Great
12-19-2007, 16:10
Very happy and can't wait!!! The Lace Wars or Age of Reason whatever you want to call it is a favourite of mine.
As with all the previous TW games I'll be there on the release date to buy my copy and now that were going to have naval warfare too this should be the best yet.It's just a pity they didn't include the naval warfare in past games e.g.RTW,MTW and M2TW.
In the period of Empire which I now understand will be from 1700 to 1820 saw the europeon nations uniform there armies in national colours and this is a added pleasure for me as we should now see a good contrast in not just the various uniforms but colours too.Officers giving out orders and regimental music in the form of drummers,fifes and even bagpipes is going to add to the feel of land warfare.
As for the people who dont like gunpower weapons and the thought of just lining your troops up against the enemy sorry thats how it was historically and continued though the napoleonic period and even the start of the ACW until the start of trench warfare.You'll still have the bayonet charge and the use of the musket as a club for hand to hand and I'm sure the north american indians will have hatchets and knives to ambush the british.

Galain_Ironhide
12-20-2007, 09:29
For the first time I can easily say that I will be waiting to see what it is like and what other peoples feedback is like before I rush out to the store and buy it.

I voted no. Mainly because gunpowder age doesnt overly thrill me and as Zenicetus mentioned a lot of the battles, in my own line of thought, would be just stand and shoot until one is left standing.

Hopefully the sea battles will be everything that they are talking them up to be too (but again hopefully sea supremacy wont be the major part of the game).

Lets wait and see.......

JR-
12-20-2007, 13:01
it's good with me.

LadyAnn
12-22-2007, 11:33
18th century warfare culminating to Napoleonic Wars was not about stand and shoot until the last one survive. The bayonet was invented and refined in that time frame for a purpose.

Annie

Fisherking
12-22-2007, 13:18
I love 18th century naval warfare though I have always found the land wars a bit less appealing but that is more the campaigns. I am very interested in the game but that said I still may not buy it if CA/SAGA are using the same invasive copy protection that they installed on Kingdoms, which I also have not purchased for that same reason.

I own every other game and expansion of the series, sometimes multiple copies. But I have to say that this is where I draw the line and I will not buy any new products until the copy protection is safe and noninvasive.

Bravedude
12-25-2007, 03:06
I am really more optimistic with this game as I read earlier in the post that M2 was made by the Australian group while the others were made by the UK group. If M2TW even had as many patches as RTW did (up to 1.5 was it?) I think it would be a vastly greater game then it is even now at 1.2 (although I hear about FactionHier having 1.3?). So yeah, I'm gonna wait for it to come out, read what people say, look for the patch support TW games need, and then judge if it will make my 2008 christmas list. Also, my response to the original question is that yes, I am happy with the decision made as I loved the gunpowder units along with pike support in the end of my campaigns in M2TW. Aventuros and Musketeers for the win!

Boyar Son
12-25-2007, 22:49
So I'm guessing because soldiers are being lined up to be shot down with ease there will be about 50-80% of the army dead?

adembroski
12-25-2007, 23:16
The engine for this game, without major modifications, will be useful from shortly after the end of the Pike and Musket era until the mid 1800 (around the American Civil War).

They're right to finally do naval battles... it'll add much needed depth to an era where land battles wont have much diversity of unit types. Unit decisions will be based on what you can afford, not what type of unit you need, since gone will be the Swords vs. Spears and Two-Handed vs. Shields debates.

Mikeus Caesar
12-26-2007, 05:39
For those pondering the direction the games can take, i reckon that if done correctly, they could probably do the entire second half of the 1800's up until the end of WW2 - and before people moan 'but how will planes work', they could be done like navies are currently done - pieces on the map, nothing more, that have a certain range depending on the planes in the stack and can be used to target enemy buildings - like assassins committing sabotage. Obviously, if there are enemy planes in that province then you'd risk losing some of yours, and obviously if civilians are killed through the bombing, then that would increase the amount of resistance you'll face upon invading the province. It would also increase the strategic value of some provinces, giving you the chance to build airfields there so you have greater reach into enemy territory.

And as for nukes - they could also easily be done. Limit factions to a maximum of maybe 5 (after all US, didn't have that many even by 1950) and make them hilariously expensive, as well as requiring the capture of certain provinces with the resources required (uranium!) and only allow them at certain times that correlate with the scientific advances that enabled them.

I feel this would be a pretty cool game. It would have a lot of scope, and you'd get a sense of just how much has changed in recent years.

Paradox
12-26-2007, 10:15
One thing I hate is historical simulation games moving forward to firearm/modern warfare. I vote no.

Mikeus Caesar
12-26-2007, 13:46
One thing I hate is historical simulation games moving forward to firearm/modern warfare. I vote no.

Luddite ;)

Innocentius
12-26-2007, 17:36
I'm happy with the decision made, yes. However, I would have prefered if they had allowed the game to span over a longer period of time (like 1571 - 1815), to further the Pike & Musket feel. Also, it feels like just because personally commanded naval battles are the most eye-catching new feature of the game, too much emphasize is being put on them - but we'll just have to wait and see I guess.

And to those of you who aren't very interested in gunpowder warfare since it - according to you - basically means standing in line and shooting at each other: think again. The bayonet was invented during this period, cavalry charges were one of the most effective ways to defeat your opponent, and the musketeers were still equipped with rapiers and smallswords. For example, the Carolean army used pikemen until the end of the Great Northern Wars, and based its tactics on melee charges with a minimal use of gunpowder (one salvo, and then close combat was joined). Not until the second half of the 19th century did guns become so effective that no hand-to-hand fighting was needed.

caravel
12-27-2007, 00:59
Personally I think it's a pretty crap idea for a TW game as well, but voted yes anyway as I'm really past caring these days. Hopefully there will be a return to ancient/medieval warfare if future TW games.

Slug For A Butt
12-27-2007, 14:45
I was hoping for R2:TW to be honest. Lining people up with guns doesn't seem at all very interesting to me, it's kind of like having an all-foot archer battle in M2:tw. I prefered the more exotic feel to Rome as well, variety of units and situations. (elephants, chariots, barbarians ect)

Couldn't have put it better myself. :yes:

Buy it? No.
Wait for it to drop in price until it comes free in a pack of cereal? Yes.
Install it once it comes free with my cornflakes? Depends what nasties are included with the software.

Paradox
12-27-2007, 15:00
Luddite ;)
Almost.

And to those of you who aren't very interested in gunpowder warfare since it - according to you - basically means standing in line and shooting at each other: think again. The bayonet was invented during this period, cavalry charges were one of the most effective ways to defeat your opponent, and the musketeers were still equipped with rapiers and smallswords. For example, the Carolean army used pikemen until the end of the Great Northern Wars, and based its tactics on melee charges with a minimal use of gunpowder (one salvo, and then close combat was joined). Not until the second half of the 19th century did guns become so effective that no hand-to-hand fighting was needed.
Well, that's good to hear. At first, I only wanted to purchase this game for the new naval warfare feature, but seeing how it isn't what I thought it was, I'm more interested in buying it. I thought it was just a group of musketeers lining up in a straight line, shooting at the enemy until they rout them all.

Innocentius
12-27-2007, 15:08
Well, that's good to hear. At first, I only wanted to purchase this game for the new naval warfare feature, but seeing how it isn't what I thought it was, I'm more interested in buying it. I thought it was just a group of musketeers lining up in a straight line, shooting at the enemy until they rout them all.

Ever seen Kubrick's Barry Lyndon? There aren't too many battlescenes in it (it's not a war movie), but the first battle - the British bayonet charge into the French rear guard - is really awesome. The discipline it must have taken to march straight into that fire, only to join just as deadly melee combat right afterwards...

Lupu
01-06-2008, 01:34
Its an interesting period with many new tactics, and much more ofcouse :D
But the best would have been a TW game focused on the Broken Crescnent theme, as the armies of the east dont just look exotic but also much better than european armies, also horse archery was common the, pro and con, pro: cool battle con: AI will be difficult to set up to handle HA, also I think cities of that area in that time were far better developed and less poor.
If you want to know my reason check out BC, history books on middle eastern warfare, and google :D

Evil_Maniac From Mars
01-06-2008, 17:31
To all the people who say that combat will simply be lining up and shooting:

You couldn't be more wrong. This was the period of human warfare when maneuver became king. If CA does this right, flanking, redoubts, and infantry squares will all make an appearance. Your main line will hold, yes, but you will constantly be wheeling, looking for an opening to exploit.

Besides, how would you feel if I said Medieval Tactics were nothing more than men running and hacking?

rajpoot
01-07-2008, 11:32
For those pondering the direction the games can take, i reckon that if done correctly, they could probably do the entire second half of the 1800's up until the end of WW2 - and before people moan 'but how will planes work', they could be done like navies are currently done - pieces on the map, nothing more, that have a certain range depending on the planes in the stack and can be used to target enemy buildings - like assassins committing sabotage. Obviously, if there are enemy planes in that province then you'd risk losing some of yours, and obviously if civilians are killed through the bombing, then that would increase the amount of resistance you'll face upon invading the province. It would also increase the strategic value of some provinces, giving you the chance to build airfields there so you have greater reach into enemy territory.

And as for nukes - they could also easily be done. Limit factions to a maximum of maybe 5 (after all US, didn't have that many even by 1950) and make them hilariously expensive, as well as requiring the capture of certain provinces with the resources required (uranium!) and only allow them at certain times that correlate with the scientific advances that enabled them.

I feel this would be a pretty cool game. It would have a lot of scope, and you'd get a sense of just how much has changed in recent years.



Duh, that'll take away the charm from the Total War series........plus, the world wars were a lot more serious and recent conflicts, I really don't think many critics will take a WW2 real-time game well, I mean, I scarcely think anyone will like to take a troop of Nazis and try and kill off a troop of the Allied Army or the vice versa......not at all nice :no:

rajpoot
01-07-2008, 11:36
To all the people who say that combat will simply be lining up and shooting:

You couldn't be more wrong. This was the period of human warfare when maneuver became king. If CA does this right, flanking, redoubts, and infantry squares will all make an appearance. Your main line will hold, yes, but you will constantly be wheeling, looking for an opening to exploit.

Besides, how would you feel if I said Medieval Tactics were nothing more than men running and hacking?

Couldn't have put it better myself!

caravel
01-07-2008, 12:55
I was hoping for the Linux port of S2:TW myself. :beam:

Hound of Ulster
01-07-2008, 18:39
my hope is that CA invest as much time and research into the Mughals and native Americans as they do the Europeans.

That and not going all crazy with the graphics like M2TW.

Innocentius
01-07-2008, 21:45
I hope that CA doesn't focus too much on America just to appeal to the fans.

Matt_Lane
01-07-2008, 23:29
TW has taken me through Europe, America and Japan so I'm really looking forward to taking my army to see the sites in India.

Martok
01-09-2008, 06:19
I hope that CA doesn't focus too much on America just to appeal to the fans.
I don't see why they would. It's not as if this continent played a significant role in the world during that time. (Indeed, NA wasn't even really a place of much worldwide interest until at least the U.S. Civil War, if not later.) I am admittedly somewhat curious as to how it will work if the Colonies rebel and form their own faction, but otherwise I think the game's focus should remain mostly on Europe, north Africa, & Asia Minor.

Mailman653
01-09-2008, 15:20
I don't see why they would. It's not as if this continent played a significant role in the world during that time. (Indeed, NA wasn't even really a place of much worldwide interest until at least the U.S. Civil War, if not later.) I am admittedly somewhat curious as to how it will work if the Colonies rebel and form their own faction, but otherwise I think the game's focus should remain mostly on Europe, north Africa, & Asia Minor.

That sound's about right more or less, the US was focused primarily on it's own affairs and economic growth, Pres.Washington believed that the US should stay out of European affairs, and for the most part this policy continued untill WWI. I can't speak for British North America though, they remained loyal to the crown alot longer unlike the Americans :laugh4:

Innocentius
01-09-2008, 17:13
I don't see why they would. It's not as if this continent played a significant role in the world during that time. (Indeed, NA wasn't even really a place of much worldwide interest until at least the U.S. Civil War, if not later.) I am admittedly somewhat curious as to how it will work if the Colonies rebel and form their own faction, but otherwise I think the game's focus should remain mostly on Europe, north Africa, & Asia Minor.

But then again, CA has previously abandoned historical accuracy in favour of things that will appeal to the audience (like pretty much everything in RTW and M2TW).

rajpoot
01-09-2008, 17:24
I really don't think it'll be possible to create a historically accurate picture in India at least. Reason being at the time of the East India company, India was mess of squabbling Rajas, with the Mugals being the namesake rulers. Furthermore, the accession process was more of cunning deals, trade, interference and intimidation. Force was used only when a ruler resisted their policy.
Unity was achieved partially and that too after 1857. And that sadly is beyond the game's scope......

Martok
01-09-2008, 19:41
But then again, CA has previously abandoned historical accuracy in favour of things that will appeal to the audience (like pretty much everything in RTW and M2TW).
You admittedly have a point there (unfortunately). Still, I have a hard time seeing how CA could justify putting any special emphasis on North America.

Of the continent's three major nations (U.S., Canada, & Mexico), only the U.S. became an independent country during the game's time frame -- and even then Europe seems to have viewed us as little more than a backwater(*). It was really only in the latter half of the 19th century (as we began to heavily industrialize and exploit our natural resources to the full) that we began to have a major impact on world affairs.


(*) Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this point.

the greek
01-14-2008, 19:48
I really like the idea of gunpowder, (mostly because of sharpe books) I think it could be awesome, but I have this nagging feeling its gonna be a bit rubbish.