hmm?Originally Posted by Sheogorath
No doubt they could, but unlike a mod team a large company usually can't get people to work for it for free.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
hmm?
No doubt they could, but unlike a mod team a large company usually can't get people to work for it for free.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Like Kekvit Irae said, there are always university departments and students looking to gain experience by doing this kind of work; maybe not for free, but no more expensive than the local voice-acting that's usually done. As far as I know, that's the way EB went about it too.
"The facts of history cannot be purely objective, since they become facts of history only in virtue of the significance attached to them by the historian." E.H. Carr
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Hello Sheogorath,
It does work as far as I can see. Toggle the multiquotes for all posts except the last, then hit the quote button for the last post.
It does however mix up the order.
Ja mata
TosaInu
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Must just be something for me then. Hitting the multiquote button sends me to the bottom of the page.
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
I dunno how all of medieval Europe would sound when trying to speak modern day English, but I felt that the Norwegian faction in Kingdoms, at least, was slightly off.
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
That sounds what the quickreply button should do.
Ja mata
TosaInu
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Yes, however, it doesnt add quotes, nor does it give any indication that it does so. Over on the Jolt forums (same setup as this) they turn orange and such when you click 'em.
Bleh.
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Personally, what I and many of the people in my clan have discussed for sometime (since RTW 1.0) is a decent, stand-alone Multiplayer format and matching system. Im sure most of you are aware of Battle.net and what Blizzard does with it. I have always felt that the TW series is superior in its game play and 'feel' to the recent additions of Blizzard RTS games, and if put on equal footing I think they would garner far more players then TW MP currently yields.
Am I asking for a complete copy of Bnet? In a perfect world, sure. But Id be happy with ANYTHING that was stable compared to the garbage that is Gamespy. Games crashing because 1 person doesnt load, the kick option rarely working to remove someone from it. Even when it does work, the game is literally ruined by the AI taking over and mass charging the closest enemy. A ranking system or ladder system, some kind of match making program, ANYTHING of the sort. Games bugging out or unable to be seen after a set number of players join (but not full). Id also like to see matching systems/clan support for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 etc.
Id also like to see some MP standards in the game for, say, starting money/use of units etc. I cant tell you how endlessly frustrating to join a game and be told "no ele/no art" or my personal favorite last night "no art, no spartans." That and the MP games that give you unlimited cash to make your army. All that does is equal out the damned game! Everyone upgrades their troops to the max, by doing so its as equal as if you did nothing! Or when I create a game and put a money cap in of, say, 12.5k I get constant complaining about "too little money."
Having a standard money/rule set for Multi-player I think would go along way in correcting the problems of the previous titles in the series. Its the one aspect Ive always felt was lacking and seemed to be thrown in as an afterthought. For me, the challenge of the game is pitting myself against thinking human opponents, not a weak AI that provides little challenge or entertainment in crushing.
Get away from Gamespy.
One small addition. I would like to see a better replay system implemented, again one similar to Warcraft 3 or Dawn Of War. Options to pause, back up, slow down etc. Watching game replays is another thing I personally enjoy, not just to add audio commentary to, but to study other players ideas and tactics in a game. Is that more in depth then most people? Probably. But I still like doing it ;)
Last edited by Emperor[1G]; 11-28-2007 at 14:27.
Clan Imperial Guard Inc.
http://www.1GReborn.com
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Hello Sheogorath,
This is the button you need to push:then it changes to
The last post you want to quote should just be quoted.
Example: you want to quote post #3, # 6 and #8, use the multiquote button
Does this work?
Ja mata
TosaInu
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Oh damn, I was clicking the wrong button!
The 'quick reply' button has the same icon as the multiquote button on Jolt!
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
One thing I dont want in empire. Fighting to the death in cities!
Why can't there be an option of surrendering.
"I thought CA was unarmed? Unless he got some samurai swords or something... I only got some rocks and some sticks." Shlin in BR realizing he has no weapons what so ever.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
At the beginning of the siege their should be the option to parley. If terms aren't agreed by the time the walls are breached then the defenders should fight to the death.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
I hope it won't still take 20 years to sail a ship from one side of the Mediterranean to the other....or 40 years to walk across Europe.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Cool thread,
I would not like to see this fighting to the death in cities aswell.
To me why couldn't they transfer the capture prisoners and intergrate it into the empire for a slave market and become part of the economic side, what you can't ransome goes to your slave market.
Dump the rebel stacks and replace them with slave up-risings.
Slaves could also impact how fast you build your empire aswell.
Food for thought.
Last edited by 7Bear7Bottom; 12-01-2007 at 10:40.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
'9) Artillery reloading every time they move.'
Well i doubt you would be rumbling along the ground over huge hills with some highly volatile substance at the best of times loaded into your cannon.
Ultimate Excellence Lies
Not In Winning
Every Battle
But In Defeating the Enemy
Without Ever Fighting
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
I understand from the CA interviews I've read that slavery might play a minor part in ETW economics but it is unlikely that it is to be highlighted in this way. Besides hadn't the taking of slaves from a defeated army died out in the Medieval era? I know fighting to the death in cities is a gaming pain and the final stand in the square would not seem historically realistic. However sacking the city if terms aren't met is historically accurate. I would much prefer the focus of the defense be moved from the square to the breach, ie the timer counts down once the attacking forces inside the cities inner defenses out number the defenders. As a compromise I would concede that routing defenders should be able to flee the city rather than just head to the square.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
The British and French Empires were built upon slavery up to nepolionic times.
Anyways, not just slavery for the army, also the populace.
It will be interesting to see how they will impliment it in Empires, CA won't do too much on it as it's not politically correct.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Your quiet right, slavery played an important part of the colonial economies but the slaves were from Africa. I don't know of any European power taking slaves from another European powers defeated army in the 18th Century.The British and French Empires were built upon slavery up to nepolionic times.
Anyways, not just slavery for the army, also the populace.
It will be interesting to see how they will impliment it in Empires, CA won't do too much on it as it's not politically correct.
The slavery issue was mentioned in a few earlier threads. They main consensus was that CA should not hide from it but that is was too sensitive a subject to incorperate fully into the game.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Yes that part is true, but they did attack each others slave ships and claimed property of them.I don't know of any European power taking slaves from another European powers defeated army in the 18th Century.
But a Slave Foundry or what ever you want to call it could be like an upgradable build for an empire. As you go through the era's, you would be able to uprade the Slave Foundry to that era or make it system event and hardwire the economic change.
I like the idea, but as you said, they are too chicken to do it.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
im sure this game will be fine,think about the peaple at ca reading this thread when the games already halfway done scratching there heads....but i could use them giving the name george washington instead of peorge kashington like in rtw,HIS NAMES HANNIBAL,HASDURBAL IS HIS BROTHER!Give there real namebut im sure that will be taken care of in rtw2 wich ca has already confirmed there making
:
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Actually Britain had outlawed slavery throughout its Empire by the game's time period and during the war of 1812 refused to hand back slaves to the USA from captured towns/plantations/whatever.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
No, slavery was still legal in the English/ British empire in 1700 and for some time thereafter.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
If you are going to insist on such accuracy with respects to time then I am afraid I am going to have to insist myself that you get the name correct. There was no "english empire".
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
how naive...
ca do listen to their customers. just not you.
they do their own market reasearch and focus testing with their main 12-15 year old market who get their parents to buy the game for them on release for top dollar as long as it looks cool. they will have more say then any of you, just look at the results of the launcher poll
still carry on i like reading you pie in the sky ideas every time a total war game comes out lol
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Oh dear.
Why the not-so-well-hidden anger?
Sig by Durango
-Oscar WildeNow that the House of Commons is trying to become useful, it does a great deal of harm.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
He's sad because he wanted Andorra: Total War.
Tallyho lads, rape the houses and burn the women! Leave not a single potted plant alive! Full speed ahead and damn the cheesemongers!
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Sadly I agree with you in part, though unlike you I won't worry too much about it. I simply won't buy any more TW games until I see a shift back to good strategic battles and a major improvement in AI and diplomacy. That's my choice. If others want to still go out and buy the game and try to influence the next game by posting their ideas I won't post needlessly here to heckle them for it.
Re: Sega listen, what we don't want in Empire!
I read that some of you guys are complaining about withdrawing the armies from the battles. Are you guys referring to the AI retreating in total confusion? I guess that can be improved. However, if it is your own armies you are having problems with withdrawing intact then there is not much CA can do about it in field battles. Isn't it really upto you to withdraw your armies with minimum casualties? On the other hand I totally agree with Romanovich on the fact that in sieges you should have more choices, you might even have the chance to retreat with your army out of a siege if you can break through.. I hate losing great generals in some expandable towns siege!!!
Cruel and Cunning
Utterly Insane
Terribly Scarred
Re: CA listen, what we don't want in Empire!
First of all Pizza Guy if you remmember you advised me a few months ago that it was possible to conquer the whole old world in about 60 turns, in the light of my recent experiences I totally agree with you and respect you for achieving it. Anyway how come such a great player like yourself totally hate gunpowder units. I mean I would expect you to mention how effective serpentines are even though other gunpowder units (including the gunpowder infantry) are really crap in field battles. The thing is I happened to wipe out entire full stacks with my serpentines in some field battles. It is like using a sniper rifle in medieval times. Though you have to develop the whole stack according to it.
Still gunpowder units must be improved and I guess they will be since the Empires' timeline is 1700's onwards.
Cruel and Cunning
Utterly Insane
Terribly Scarred
Re: CA listen, what we don't want in Empire!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
If they hand out awards for exploiting game weaknesses, then yes, I am a great player.
First of all, as a mad, mad, mad, mad (frothing mad) berserking blitzer, I do not ever, and I mean EVER make it to the gunpowder era. Not even in Lands to Conquer. Nope, not even in The Long Road.
I've only ever used gunpowder units in custom battles.
Some poor fellow actually sat around and made Denmark survive until the gunpowder era just to he could send me the save file and I could tinker with powdered units. Snore. That's right up there with waiting forever and ever just so you can sail to the Americas and face the worthless and pathetic Aztecs. That's my big reward???
I'd rather face the entire Chinese army with only a wooden club than trample over defenseless Aztecs with my armoured horsemen wielding rifles. One is more honourable than the other.
I want to be able to blitz and blitz and blitz until finally a real Mongol horde shows up and counter-blitzes me. For reals.
Like 20 stacks, all at once, heading directly for the heart of my empire. I want the HORDE banging on my door steps not hanging around on the eastern steppes.
I want all 20 stacks to be plated in gold armour, wielding giant eastern blades, firing cannons, and I'm not allowed to have gunpowder. That would be like repelling the Borg from their invasion of the Federation. I live and breathe on that kind of impossible pressure.
And I want the Invasion to happen within 30 turns, not 75, and all at once, not scattered. And I want the Timurids to attack from the South simultaneously.
Not historically accurate, but I want the Europeans who feared and hated me for brutally conquering them to declare me their savior after I rescue their expletive deleted from the Horde Of Death. So long as I don't exterminate them, I should make a better leader than some Mongol occupier.
The reason why I hate gunpowder units:
1. They take too long to get. I could have conquered Asia by the time they brought the horde to bear upon me.
2. They are boring (except for cannons)
3. They are cowardly. I prefer a straight fight to firing on people from far away, especially if they are armed with swords and armour.
4. They are totally unnecessary to winning the game. Just as assassins and merchants are, if you're a blitzer. Those florins could be spent on proper soldiers. As for merchants, I'm far too busy conquering merchant empires to try to compete with them. I'd rather do hostile takeovers of the military kind.
Back to guns... inaccurate, cheap, takes forever to fire, worthless in close combat, cowardly, and totally worthless to a blitzer who rolls up the entire map before you can say Mongol.
That is why I hate gunpowder units.
_________________________
New stats for Askthepizzaguy
Openly loathes and despises gunpowder units
-3 command when commanding gunpowder units
Desires to humilate cowards who use gunpowder
+4 command when attacking gunpowder units
Wishes there was a "Nightmare" difficulty level
Only plays on VeryHard/VeryHard
Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 12-17-2007 at 18:01.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks