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.
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.
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).
I think that Nobunaga never wanted to be at Hounnoiji
Empire will be using a brand new engine.
Unit Design Lead
Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.
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.
Absolutely psyched for this one. This is the one I've been waiting for since they started making total war
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 :pOriginally Posted by Freedom Onanist
If violence didn't solve your problem... well, you just haven't been violent enough.
Thinking about it just now; this feature could lead to some interesting 'capture the flag' type multi player maps.Originally Posted by iblewafuse14
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
“If you want to be happy, be.”
- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy
Unless you're playing as Napoleonic FranceOriginally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
"I request permanent reassignment to the Gallic frontier. Nay, I demand reassignment. Perhaps it is improper to say so, but I refuse to fight against the Greeks or Macedonians any more. Give my command to another, for I cannot, I will not, lead an army into battle against a civilized nation so long as the Gauls survive. I am not the young man I once was, but I swear before Jupiter Optimus Maximus that I shall see a world without Gauls before I take my final breath."
Senator Augustus Verginius
In which case you just go for everythingOriginally Posted by Mount Suribachi
Cheers,
The Freedom Onanist
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.
Yeah, I'd say I'm fairly happy with the direction CA are taking this. 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.Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
My guess is there will be mentions of it in Historical Events and the like, but no slave resource.
im happy, but i wont be if the game is rated "M" or has really high system reqiurements.
On the Path to the Streets of Gold: a Suebi AAR
Visited:
Hvil i fred HoreToreA man who casts no shadow has no soul.
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.
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
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.Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
Friendship, Fun & Honour!
"The Prussian army always attacks."
-Frederick the Great
If players have been complaining about irritating commentary how long before there rioting because of non stop bag pipes.Originally Posted by Mailman653
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?
Bloody French, when we all stop expanding in Europe they decide to startOriginally Posted by Mount Suribachi
RIP TosaInu
Ja Mata
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?
"Let us wrestle with the ineffable and see if we may not, in fact, eff it after all." -Dirk Gently, character of the late great Douglas Adams.
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.Originally Posted by Pode
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.
Feaw is a weapon.... wise genewuhs use weuuhw! -- Jebe the Tyrant
Can't say I'm overly enthusiastic.
Nostalgia forbids me to like any new releases except STW2.
- Chu - Gi - Makoto - Rei - Jin - Yu - Meiyo -
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
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
Under construction...
"In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore
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.
Best yet!
Cheers,
The Freedom Onanist
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.
"Sit now there, and look out upon the lands where evil and despair shall come to those whom thou lovest. Thou hast dared to mock me, and to question the power of Melkor, master of the fates of Arda. Therefore with my eyes thou shalt see, and with my ears thou shalt hear; and never shall thou move from this place until all is fulfilled unto its bitter end". -Tolkien
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.
RIP TosaInu
Ja Mata
Bookmarks