Happy with the decision made?

[Zenicetus]

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.

[Benandorf]

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]

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]

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...4635&id=104099

A love this graphics :)

[alpaca]

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]

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]

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

[TB666]

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]

Well put, Ser Clegane; you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth.

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]

Finally, pantaloons!

[Csargo]

I'm happy with it, but I would hope that they would have extend the timeline a little.

[christof139]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Daveybaby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

i hope for the best but i really don't have high expectations

[Rodion Romanovich]

Will Boney/Nappy era be covered as well?