View Full Version : So I Played Empire Total War Last Night
Chirurgeon
02-27-2009, 16:37
Do not worry. It will not distract from my work here with EB. I was actually a bit disappointed. The bright point of it was the naval combat. Very cool to watch enemy ships splinter apart in vivid detail. However the land combat is not as good as I hoped. It seemed clunky and the graphics on land were not nearly as good as that on sea. I was surprised that the units looked less detailed then I thought. I thought they might be a little more crisp. Sigh...I guess all the good fighting ended with the invention of gunpowder. I will probably buy the full version and hope it gets better. However I think that the Creative Assembly has reached the near limit of their timeline. An American Civil War strategy game would be cool but what then? Trench warfare in WWI?
SwissBarbar
02-27-2009, 16:40
Nay. The only purpose of Empires is to be a base for EB III, of course with naval battles between Triremes and Biremes etc. :2thumbsup:
A Very Super Market
02-27-2009, 16:48
I dunno, maybe they would combine the powers of all the games and make a 272BC to 1850 game. With the entire world.
We shall fwee...Wodewick
02-27-2009, 16:53
However the land combat is not as good as I hoped. It seemed clunky and the graphics on land were not nearly as good as that on sea. I was surprised that the units looked less detailed then I thought. I thought they might be a little more crisp.
Unless your demo was different, the highest settings you could use were medium, so I would expect the full game to be a lot better. Not that my computer could dream of handling it. It could barely handle the lowest settings.
Aye, I tried the demo aswel, and was utterly disappointed.
Then again, I never liked TW games vanilla.
The land battles feel like a step backwards for some reason... Maybe it just has been to long since I played any vanilla. Or the fact that I also dont like gunpowder battles :)
Has anyone seen those screens from the campaign map? Now that was the biggest turnoff of the whole game for me.
Nonetheless I preordered the game, will prolly allocate yet another particle of my so precious time to it.
Only reason why I bought it, is 1) to complete my collection 2) to be able to participate in hotseats/PBM's here. 3) just hoping that awesome mods will come for it eventually :)
Βελισάριος
02-27-2009, 17:04
I haven't gotten the E:TW demo yet... not sure if my old chug-a-bug can take it.
But I am definitely looking forward to naval battles. I'm a seadog, born and bred.
And as for the TW series continuing... trench warfare in WWI would be the next logical step. I'm very curious about how they might handle that.
Could be a step up in tactics for the series, you know.
If I had anything to say about it, they'd remake Rome in co-op with the EB team ;p
A Very Super Market
02-27-2009, 17:08
No. They really couldn't. CA has to stay in the pre-1860 period, otherwise weapons start getting so accurate and long ranged that it'd be boring. Not to mention how weird it would be to have separate formations of men running around. There are no field battles pro-1860, there are military operations, thousand mile fronts, and loose formations that just wouldn't work with our point-and-move system.
Curses! I was going to start a thread like this!
Anyway, I was very satisfied with the demo. I felt that the AI was challenging (Or maybe I was just a bad player -_- ) I found the ship battles very interesting, although were EB III to use E:TW engine, I don't know how they'd use broadsides...
I also thought it was interesting because warfare becomes all about setting up positions and angles, rather than a random flankage. I think it has the potential to be really, really good though.
A Terribly Harmful Name
02-27-2009, 19:18
Well, I must say that after a brief period of euphoria I'm back into EB. CA has once again made a so-so game with short fun lifespan.
Nay. The only purpose of Empires is to be a base for EB III, of course with naval battles between Triremes and Biremes etc. :2thumbsup:
the problem with that is it seems that ships are not able to collide in the demo...
A Terribly Harmful Name
02-27-2009, 21:46
The modders will find a way. They always do...
Olaf Blackeyes
02-28-2009, 04:11
Hontely CA isnt limited by the 1860 limit the TW series as we know it is.
They will do one of two things.
1.Abandon the TW title in their 1860+ games.
2.Abandon the TW engine and still call the games TW to attract sales.
the man with no name
02-28-2009, 20:10
Hontely CA isnt limited by the 1860 limit the TW series as we know it is.
They will do one of two things.
1.Abandon the TW title in their 1860+ games.
2.Abandon the TW engine and still call the games TW to attract sales.
lolzerz
Βελισάριος
03-01-2009, 06:07
Or they could make Rome II: Total War.
Oh, the epicness of it all!
Antinous
03-01-2009, 07:59
Hey Chirurgeon could you tape the demo of the sea battles or take pics. I couldn't get the demo running on my computer.
Lucio Domicio Aureliano
03-01-2009, 19:53
Or they could make Rome II: Total War.
Oh, the epicness of it all!
Rumours are that the next title is Rome II: Total War.
Silence Hunter
03-02-2009, 00:55
Well Rome: Total War was a huge success, so it would be logical to make Rome II TW. Many players (including me) were introduced into TW franchise by RTW. There are also alot of people who were dissapointed with MIITW, or generally not interested in time period. I bet this will happen with Empires too.
Βελισάριος
03-02-2009, 01:11
Personally, I'd rather have a Shogun II: Total War. After all, that was the first in the series, wasn't it?
And I still think trench warfare could work. Gatling units, Howitzers. It'd be arguably a lot more static than Rome or Medieval, but it can still be done. CA may have to revolutionise the way that the engine works. With more commands for each unit, more formations, a general that is otherwise occupied and away from the battlefield, and, of course... aerial combat.
To me it seems like a logical step for the franchise, because, after all, World War One was the first "total war" in history. Of course, the definition may vary, but that's what most historians would call it. Because it was fought on air, land and sea (and in cabinets too, heh).
A Very Super Market
03-02-2009, 01:16
I don't possibly see how trench warfare could work in the TW engine or anything like it. They would need to make a completely different game.
What would be the objective? How would would it even work on the campaign map?
Rumours are that the next title is Rome II: Total War.
How would that fit in with their "revolution/evolution" game making process? one would imagine they would stay in the gunpowder period for the next game and then move on to RTW2.
That being said i wouldn't mind RTW2 at all or maybe even a game based around the warring states period of china, it being, i feel, one of the only times in history that the tw series has not touched on.
I
What would be the objective? How would would it even work on the campaign map?
Hearts of Iron 2 + Theatre of War could work.
Theater of War is just too small in scale, though. And sooo slow.
Hearts of Iron I haven't gotten to play yet.
A WWI game in the TW style just wouldn't work. Although seeing von Beneckendorf charge his cavalry or whatever right into my trenches at the beginning of a battle would be lol.
A Very Super Market
03-02-2009, 03:05
If you take different games, then it isn't TW anymore. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it,but it would be stupid to market is as Trench: Total War or something.
Yes, I know that is a stupid title.
the problem with that is it seems that ships are not able to collide in the demo..
I am not sure this is actually true as I had one of my ships ram full bore into a french ship in the demo and the two became stuck together for the remainder of the battle. I brought in another ship to board the french ship since it couldn't move. Granted I can't say for certain this was by design or was simply a glitch.
Back on topic I think they could do a WWI type game, the fronts weren't always active so they could have you go to real time strategy map on the segment of the front where the enemy was launching or defending one of your assaults. Just a thought.
well, If CA wants to continue as a success, I think they should revamp the way they make computer games, as they need to make he games more user friendly (i.e, workable on normal PC's and laptops, as most won't be able to properly run ETW, or even run it the first place. Its laggy on my laptop, and mine is above average).
helps too if they work on that AI. I swear its almost as if they were building those latest ones for my fellow biology students, its too dumbed down on the battlefield.
antisocialmunky
03-02-2009, 03:55
Well they are making that futuristic RTS as well. I forget what its called but you can search for that game on Wikipedia by going through the CA related entries.
Yeah, that's Stormrise.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/stormrise/index.html
It's coming out in 3 weeks.
Sounds interesting.
Well they are making that futuristic RTS as well. I forget what its called but you can search for that game on Wikipedia by going through the CA related entries.
I am well aware of that, and I look forward to trying out. nicely done.
but the point is, if they apply improved AI to their total war series, it would do much to add to an already superlative game series. I just find that the AI in the latest games (ETW included), to be sorely dissapointing. It can be manipulated too easily(taken advantage of), and as I said, its like they make them for my fellow biology student.:shame:
Husker98
03-02-2009, 06:18
well, If CA wants to continue as a success, I think they should revamp the way they make computer games, as they need to make he games more user friendly (i.e, workable on normal PC's and laptops, as most won't be able to properly run ETW, or even run it the first place. Its laggy on my laptop, and mine is above average).
helps too if they work on that AI. I swear its almost as if they were building those latest ones for my fellow biology students, its too dumbed down on the battlefield.
I agree when i play vanilla total war the whole game feels like an empty canvas. they could have done more but chose not to because they have no real competition. yea Europa Universalis is a great game but they are still firmly number two behind the total war series.
R2TW with all current improvements, néw improvements and extra-moddable so ppl who actually KNOW something bout history can make remake the game as it is supposed to be (go EB!)
Atraphoenix
03-02-2009, 12:30
I dunno, maybe they would combine the powers of all the games and make a 272BC to 1850 game. With the entire world.
like civilization series :laugh4: would be cool...:yes:
Personally, I'd rather have a Shogun II: Total War. After all, that was the first in the series, wasn't it?
I too would love this, but the scale of Shogun would be a step back from the huge maps of Rome, M2 and, I assume, Empire. An Asia:TW would be great, especially with an EB type mod to teach you a lot of the local history.
I played the tutorials and love it, it all worked fine no problems. Come the battles (mainly land) my PC gave up and chugged it along.
I was hoping my Athlon 3500 and 3gb would have helped it a little but it did struggle.
I will get the full copy soon but am just hoping I don't give up on it like MTW2. Even though I prefer the addon for MTW2 as it has more replay.
They really should make a RTW addon for the mainland UK where the celts and Romans can all fight it out. The TW series survives on its graphics engine not the playability side of the engine. If they took the Hearts of Iron Diplomacy and put it in the TW series with the Graphics. It would be the best game ever, however we have to rely on select groups to modify the TW game to make it more enjoyable and replayable.
Scipio Asiaticus
03-02-2009, 15:09
I must say I was disappointed, the Naval battles were different and fun, but the land battles, were really quite dull. I lose interest with pops and the bangs, its all sadly predictable, lines of infantry in long lines shooting at each other.
As for WW1, please NO, what can be the fun of artillery blowing the hell out of everything, then machine guns mowing down men, like sheaves of wheat.
I will look forward to what the modders will do it, EB3, Stainless Steel and TATW.
Basically I love my ancient history so much, that anything else is just not my cup of tea!
CA's next one, should be Shogun, it was the first and should be reborn
An Asia TW is probably unlikely. I don't think it would sell very well. People in the "west" is not as interested in Asian history I'm afraid. People want knights, pirates and romans - things they know. :shame:
antisocialmunky
03-02-2009, 15:33
I'd have to disagree. There's a fair bit of interest in East Asian history especially with Samurai, the 1st Emperor, and the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms. Granted its not that widespread but its there.
I'd have to disagree. There's a fair bit of interest in East Asian history especially with Samurai, the 1st Emperor, and the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms. Granted its not that widespread but its there.
I'm afraid it's far less common than "not that widespread". I don't think that The Romance Of The 3 Kingdoms means anything for anyone I know IRL (other than myself).
In fact one of the things I always complain about when talking about my history classes in high school was the complete lack of information about the east. They didn't even mention the Pacific War. (~10 years and the general public here will have forgotten about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)
Of course that may depend on where your living, the interest in eastern history will of course be much higher in regions with a lot of Asian immigrants.
Nonetheless, Asia: Total War would be great. *Hoping for a mod if an official game is not possible*
My Rating:
1. Asia: TW
2. R2: TW (2nd place because we already got EB)
3. Shogun 2:TW (Would be fun to have armies change sides after being routed)
I agree when i play vanilla total war the whole game feels like an empty canvas. they could have done more but chose not to because they have no real competition. yea Europa Universalis is a great game but they are still firmly number two behind the total war series.
true that, but I didn't mention EU, which IMO is not all that great, mostly because of the way it is released. but yes, the total war series feels like an untapped wild.
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2009, 19:37
Heh, I was quite disappointed with the Empire Demo too. I have not played it, but watched a ton of videos. Still, all you lads have a point: the land battles are dull. Then again, I never liked M2TW, and the saddest thing was that it was only for two or three glitches that I lost my interest in it for two weeks. So basically, I did not expect much of ETW either. I am a pessimist. I noticed that usually the TW game a person starts out with is they one they like the best. What do you say?
Too bad they never adopted something along the lines of Cossacks: European Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks:_European_Wars), American Conquest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Conquest), and Cossacks 2: Napoleonic Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossacks_II:_Napoleonic_Wars) series. That game's only problem was the ridiculously small campaign map, in comparison to TW. It would possibly be a rip-off, but then just about every game ripped something off Starcraft, Dune, and Age of Empires, the three parents of alll true, modern RTS games. In Cossacks, among all things, you have zones of deadliness of musket fire and the game combat is a tad more complex.
I'll wait till I've played the campaign before I judge ETW. If I had played an EB historical battle without playing the game before I'd probably be disappointed as well.
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2009, 20:14
I'll wait till I've played the campaign before I judge ETW. If I had played an EB historical battle without playing the game before I'd probably be disappointed as well.
Well, and there is that too. You are somewhat right. The first time I tried EB, and the campaign, mind you, I hated it. It frustrated me to a great length. But very soon, I came to love, and now I practically worship this game. Nothing I have ever played has compared to EB, and I have played pretty much every RTS game out there. I do not think I missed out on anything made after 1998.
It is possible ETW campaign will be better, but we already see that the basic land combat is rather shoddy, something that even M2TW and my first days of EB were above. But I would say that the game will not be another masterpiece. Very, very few sequels are. Usually, the quality drops each successive release. That is pretty much universal. Need I even give examples??
Connacht
03-02-2009, 22:00
I agree with those who say that a real-time tactics game in the World War period can't be done with the TW engine, it should instead be like the Close Combat series (or, for instance, like Faces of War, altough - I think - it's a little dull but that's another thread).
However, I think that Rome 2 will be the next game, rather than an Asia: Total War. Especially if Empires shall not receive a lot of consensus, a thing that would force the guys of CA to release a title of assured economical success (and a Roman empire-like game is generally more popular than a Chinese empire-like game).
Aemilius Paulus
03-02-2009, 22:10
I noticed that usually the TW game a person starts out with is they one they like the best. What do you say?
Anyone??
As for Asia TW, that would probably be a disaster, since China has basically no copyright laws and does not enforce the little it has. Just like Russia TW - only two or three Russians would be stupid but honest enough to get it legally. That is why there will not be a Russia: TW...
Rumours are that the next title is Rome II: Total War.
Rumours are that it will be out before EB II.
If you take different games, then it isn't TW anymore. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it,but it would be stupid to market is as Trench: Total War or something.
Yes, I know that is a stupid title.
I'd buy it, purely for the title.
the problem with that is it seems that ships are not able to collide in the demo...
...And that you can sail upwind.
An Asia TW is probably unlikely. I don't think it would sell very well. People in the "west" is not as interested in Asian history I'm afraid. People want knights, pirates and romans - things they know
You have the reverse situation in the "East". Kids are taught all about Nanjing/Manchukuo etc, and not about the horrors of Das Dritte Reich. So when they grow up, they discover all these cool leather uniforms and goose-stepping SS men; subsequently, there is quite an affection for the Nazis in some parts of Asia. This goes to the extreme in places like Beijing and Shanghai, where you can visit Nazi themed bars, where one has to dress up as a member of the SS or Gestapo. :inquisitive:
I noticed that usually the TW game a person starts out with is they one they like the best. What do you say?
Not so sure about this one. Though it applies to me (started with RTW and that's my favorite game so far), that's mostly because I've always been interest in the antiquity. (I know that I'm wrong, but I tend to see the medieval people only as a couple of uncivilized German barbarians lead even further astray by a corrupted church.)
Yet, I played M2TW just as much as I played RTW. M2TW is not a bad game, at least not worse than RTW. The reason why most of you stopped playing M2TW so fast is probably because no commercial game will ever be able to stand up to the epicness of EB. (At least not in the next few years.)
AP, I do not think that you are credible as an authority on this subject.
A. You've played ALL the hundreds of RTS out there?
B. You forget the true grandfather of RTS, The Ancient Art of War, as well as the godfather of RTS, Command and Conquer.
C. You dismiss every RTS made in the last decade, such as C&C titles, Warcraft, Empire Earth, Homeworld, etc. Not to mention that Warcraft is pretty much as old as Dune in its earliest form.
Connacht
03-02-2009, 23:30
Unfortunately RTS games aren't a good comparison in this thread (or at least not always), since TW games are RTT games (well, with a turn based strategic side as well), which are very different from C&C or Warcraft, both for game mechanics and way of playing them.
A serious comparison between Rome: Total War and Age of Empires, for instance, would make me scream and laugh at the same time.
antisocialmunky
03-02-2009, 23:59
...And that you can sail upwind.
Ships do collide but not epically but if one of the ships are on fire, it'll light the other on fire.
ETW originally had a more realistic sailing model but it was removed because the testers had too hard of a time sailing their ships around. Seriously, would you really want to deal with that on a map of finite space?:inquisitive:
I'll take reasonable gameplay compromises over realism except in a simulator.
scorepio
03-03-2009, 00:01
?????
What's wrong with you guys ?? (or your eyes )
I played the demo as well and the graphics are superb. (land- and seabattles)
And yes , you can have all settings on high with the demo. (i could )
My pc : dual core 2 6300 , 2gigs DDR , Geforce 8800 GTS and windows vista.
Although I prefer the classic period ,I was very impressed with the demo .
This is screenshot i took. ( my pc )
http://i60.servimg.com/u/f60/12/20/75/18/light_10.jpg
Well, the game comes out tomorrow. We will see if the game lives up to its potential based on professional and user reviews (and NOT on opinions based on ETW videos).
The TW series survives on its graphics engine
Any game that puts graphics over playability is NOT a good game.
Any dev team that puts graphics first, is a dev team as bad as EA.
Go play Dwarf Fortress for proof. :3
Aemilius Paulus
03-03-2009, 01:05
The TW series survives on its graphics engine not the playability side of the engine.
How true :no:. Unfortunately yes, the developers think that helps, but heck, I barely notice graphics most of the time I am playing. The only exceptions are EB and EEI.
As for my expertise in RTS games, I have only played all of the non-fantasy ones. I have not tried Warcraft.
Anyway, are there any other Empire Earth I fans around here? What a historic example the series were. I hope EEIII was a good lesson and warning for the rest of the developers. "Dumbening" down a game might attract a few casual players, but that will alienate the RTS fans, who compromise the majority of the market. Not to mention that the franchise had no future if it stuck to its original concept. How much longer can you redo all of the world's history when you remove and not add features. Even if the Empire Earth developers added things, it would still be difficult. What you mostly get are repeats.
What about Cossacks? Anyone played these series? Now THAT was a good representation of the ETW time period.
This period of warfare isn't one i find particularly interesting to be honest, but i'm still excited about the game because of the new features and because it's still the same kind of strategy game that the previous TW games were.
I'd really like to see a TW set in the darkest of dark age Europe, when religion, warfare and the standard of living was at its utmost brutal... I'm talking like 600AD onwards, up until around 1000AD.
I know this was covered in the BI expansion for Rome, but it was just an expansion and didn't have enough realism or depth. It felt like an expansion just to keep people happy until the next game, i want one that feels like an epic full game.
But still, i know this one is going to be amazing, because although this period of warfare doesn't tickle my fancy very much, it's still a hell of a lot of fun to see thousands of riflemen line up and fire at each other.
That's one thing I never asked. In ETW, does the 20 unit limit still apply? Can you do that army switching thing that is in MTW2? It would be a shame to have 3000 man armies when most were commonly 50,000 or more, and Napoleon's Grand Army was 500,000 (though I suppose that could be broken up into a few stacks).
Antinous
03-03-2009, 01:46
Besides gunpowder ruined combat. Having a cavalry charge that gets destroyed before it even reaches the enemy is worthless.
Aemilius Paulus
03-03-2009, 01:58
Besides gunpowder ruined combat. Having a cavalry charge that gets destroyed before it even reaches the enemy is worthless.
Ahem. Slingers and Light/Medium Cavalry anyone?? In 1.1, which I am still playing, I have done that before. The cavalry was galloping towards me but it was decimated and routed before they reached me. Heh, for some reason in RTW/EB the cavalry takes much heavier damage from missiles than corresponding (sat-wise) infantry. And if you played vanilla, then Cretans destroying even the heavier cavalry units before those could reach the archers was a common occurrence. I even remember a multiplayer video of PrinceofMacedon featuring a unit of Punic slingers that destroyed a squadrons of Greek Cavalry.
Hahaha!
You know what would be hilarious?
If when you have a cavalry unit charge riflemen the advisor pops up and says "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
:laugh4:
Besides gunpowder ruined combat. Having a cavalry charge that gets destroyed before it even reaches the enemy is worthless.
balsphemy!!! just look at the cavalry charge Frederick's cuirassiers had on the French and austrians at the battle of Rossbach: Fredrich said: "I won the battle of Rossbach with most of my infantry having their muskets shouldered".
here is an account: http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757-11-05_-_Battle_of_Rossbach
anyways, the point is that gunpowder on its own did not destroy cavalry's power; it was the way it was used. once the infantry were taught to form squares, that was when cavalry was truly screwed(even then a square may get broken-every napoleonic trooper's dream), which only became common after c.1760. usually, the infantry got lucky with their shooting (Fontenoy), the enemy used poor cavalry tactics (Fontenoy and Minden), or the infantry charged the cavalry before it could do much (see the battle of Minden)
@desert: :laugh4:
[MG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Fontenoy.jpg[/IMG]
sorry, I am a seven years war buff, as evidenced by my working at Kronoskaf, and my desktop picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Fontenoy.jpg
yes that is my wallpaper.
Aemilius Paulus
03-03-2009, 02:29
Hahaha!
You know what would be hilarious?
If when you have a cavalry unit charge riflemen the advisor pops up and says "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
:laugh4:
Hehe, stupid Brits charging artillery and the sore loser French commenting on something as alien to him as war... :clown:
But the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava during the Crimean war was not necessarily a charge against riflemen but against artillery. Some riflemen were present at the earthworks on top of the hills, but they were not even as numerous as to be organised into a unit.
Still, your splendid use of a quote plus the witty historical reference is certainly worth a balloon: :balloon:
I've booked in my copy of ETW, got sucked into buying the "special forces" version (I keep imagining Jaegers with nightvision goggles for some reason).
I love the idea of combining various strat games, unlikely as it is. The easy-to-mod events of EU and its relatively simple and stable CB system make for better long term historical narrative. TW favours a "rise and rise" narrative, with a dominant winner after an extended deathmatch (which suits most of the time periods they have covered).
Some sort of marriage between EU and MTW might work as both are region-based. However I lack any clue at all about modding, so who really knows.
Hehe, stupid Brits charging artillery and the sore loser French commenting on something as alien to him as war... :clown:...
Hehehe, yet another ignorant gag about the French not knowing about war even though they were a dominant European military power for centuries, hehehe.
chairman
03-03-2009, 04:18
How true :no:. Unfortunately yes, the developers think that helps, but heck, I barely notice graphics most of the time I am playing. The only exceptions are EB and EEI.
As for my expertise in RTS games, I have only played all of the non-fantasy ones. I have not tried Warcraft.
Anyway, are there any other Empire Earth I fans around here? What a historic example the series were. I hope EEIII was a good lesson and warning for the rest of the developers. "Dumbening" down a game might attract a few casual players, but that will alienate the RTS fans, who compromise the majority of the market. Not to mention that the franchise had no future if it stuck to its original concept. How much longer can you redo all of the world's history when you remove and not add features. Even if the Empire Earth developers added things, it would still be difficult. What you mostly get are repeats.
What about Cossacks? Anyone played these series? Now THAT was a good representation of the ETW time period.
@ AP,
I was also a huge fan of EEI, but I didn't even have to wait for EEIII to be disappointed by EEII. Sure, it had some great features, but it sacrificed accuracy for "playability", which really meant "palatable for 10 yr olds to 14 yr olds". I'll admit, that a few months ago, I fired it up again, and was obsessed with EEII for a while, but it didn't have the replayability of EEI, and the scenario editor is much more difficult to use than the original. That is one thing that EEI was great about: the scenario editor was easy to use and expansive enough to include just about every game feature. I never even bothered with EEIII when I saw the previews.
I am also disappointed that, AFAIK, no historical RTS game has included the Indian subcontinent. The expansion to EEII was amazing in that it had 2 "African" nations: the Zulu and Masai, completely ignoring the much more powerful, influential and organized nations of Ethiopia, Mali, Ghana, Songhay, Kanem-Bornu and the rest of west Africa. Oh well.
Chairman
A Terribly Harmful Name
03-03-2009, 05:08
Cossacks II sucked hard and had a very clunky and obsolete framework. I've never heard of a possible sequel or of the developers since. A pity since the original Cossacks got me hooked for a long time. I even toyed with wooden sticks to simulate the muskets in the game; that's because I never saw a good gunpowder age game before.
To me it seems like a logical step for the franchise, because, after all, World War One was the first "total war" in history. Of course, the definition may vary, but that's what most historians would call it. Because it was fought on air, land and sea (and in cabinets too, heh).
I remember reading somewhere that 'Total War' is a term given to a war in which civilians are being targeted along with militants (ie. at war with/killing everything). In this case Burebista would be right in that world war one (and two) was a 'total war'. Cities were bombed not to destroy military targets but to take out civilians and city production facilities. Nowadays (Irag, Afgahnistan, etc) wars are fought against military combatants with civilian casualties severly frowned upon.
Although CA is probably using the term to refer to lots of people/countries at war the term comes from elsewhere.
A Very Super Market
03-03-2009, 06:59
A bit like that.
Total war is when a nation basically declares all-out war. Industry is converted for the war effort. All profit is converted for the war effort. The citizen population is forced to fight on the home front, or serve in the front lines.
With this definition, one can find a number of wars before WWI that fit .
Ahh, that may be more correct. Was just a passing notation in a book I read many years ago. Forgotten until now.
Urgent I need a quick rant.
I thought Steam for Demo, fine.
My full copy just came through the letter box and it wants to use Steam, why...why Steam I hate it. I hated it in CSS years ago and I hate it now still.
:furious3:
Even better it can't connect to the Steam servers, oh how this brings back old memories.
Probably because some freemason criminal from Steam has a freemason friend from CA. They probably sat drinking expensive cognac whilst striking a deal to make steam insane amounts of money by forcing people to use it, despite the fact that more people hate Steam than actually like it.
I had to give up my beloved AVG to use Steam! Curse you Valve, one minute you give joy to people across the world with treasures such as Half-Life and Portal, the next you spit in our faces with Steam! Why?
Well its installed and updated it via steam and heres the best bit.
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/295/screenies.th.jpg (https://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenies.jpg)
There's no way to play it without using steam?
Looking at it no.
The Vulg is not happy, not happy at all and is off to format the PC to hopefully get this to work.
Adios for now.
They are forcing us to use Steam with this game? Ha! I was wondering if I should get this or not but now I'm staying well away!
They are forcing us to use Steam with this game? Ha! I was wondering if I should get this or not but now I'm staying well away!
I wish i had the same willpower, but i absolutely love the TW games and i wouldn't care if i had to suck Hitler's toes to be able to play it, i still would, because i want the game so much.
But i really, really do despise Steam with every fibre of my being.
Hello am back with a cleanish version of xp and nothing to cause steam to have a hissy fit.
I will update you all later with this very frustrating 'steam' method to play a game.
Not gonna buy this before I find a way to play it without using steam.
No matter how much I love TW, I'm not going to let them force me to use steam. (Actually the problems isn't that I would have to use Steam but that I would have to use Stream.)
Not gonna buy this before I find a way to play it without using steam.
No matter how much I love TW, I'm not going to let them force me to use steam. (Actually the problems isn't that I would have to use Steam but that I would have to use Stream.)
Bit late for me on this one.
Clean PC and popped the disk in only to have Steam come floating down onto my hard disk. Oh fun times of validating the install are ahead for this evening.
Steam is basicly DRM these days, more invasive then the DRM used in spore too.
I bet the next total war will require you to have Steam and Impulse running, and require a urine sample each time you want to play.
Woah...
https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/yy.jpg
penguinking
03-04-2009, 02:09
Anyway, are there any other Empire Earth I fans around here? What a historic example the series were. I hope EEIII was a good lesson and warning for the rest of the developers. "Dumbening" down a game might attract a few casual players, but that will alienate the RTS fans, who compromise the majority of the market. Not to mention that the franchise had no future if it stuck to its original concept. How much longer can you redo all of the world's history when you remove and not add features. Even if the Empire Earth developers added things, it would still be difficult. What you mostly get are repeats.
I loved EEI, it was the first RTS I ever played and I still play it once in a while. The awesomely difficult campaigns and excellent scenario editor were great things. EEII was worse, and had major stability issues on my computer. I didn't bother getting EEIII after reading the reviews.
A Very Super Market
03-04-2009, 02:20
Oh man.. EEIII....
Don't worry, I didn't get it. But my unfortunate neighbour did, and he sweared throughout the night.
But ETW isn't "dumbed down", not from the reviews or the reports.
Pontius Pilate
03-04-2009, 02:33
I don't understand all the animosity towards Empire total war, so far critics and players have rated it pretty high. I never even saw anything less than a nine out of ten. ex:http://pc.ign.com/objects/958/958390.html
EB was and still is a great game, but don't let it blind you from enjoying other games.
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2009, 03:07
I choose to not be open-minded:grin:
The ratings should fall, very few games ever receive such high scores, and the few that do are the first of their kind, and not 5th in a series.
A Very Super Market
03-04-2009, 03:12
Or maybe we're all extremely jaded individuals?
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2009, 03:20
Or maybe we're all extremely jaded individuals?
Jaded? What does that mean? Elitist/snobbish? Too good for something? Sorry, I am not much on American slang.
A Very Super Market
03-04-2009, 03:27
Not American at all. In fact, it has been a part of English for quite a while.
jaded (comparative more jaded, superlative most jaded)
Positive
jaded
Comparative
more jaded
Superlative
most jaded
Worn out, wearied, or lacking enthusiasm; exhausted.
Cynically insensitive; made callous by experience.
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2009, 03:55
Oh yes, commendable use of adjective there. Yes, I was always a pessimistic, cynical skeptic myself.
Sooo, back on topic?
Yeah, sequels almost never turn out well. Can anyone give me an example of a sequel to a game that was better than the original??
A sequel can definitely be as good as or better than an earlier title.
Warcraft 3 and Warcraft
Halo 2 and Halo
Gears of War 2 and Gears of War
Condemned 2 and Condemned
TOAW II and TOAW
Spiderman 2 and Spiderman
Galactic Civilizations 2 and Galactic Civilizations
Resident Evil 4 vs the Rest
Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater vs the Rest
RTW vs Shogun :yes:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion vs Other Elder Scrolls
Off the top of my head.
Edit: GTA: San Andreas, GTA IV and the older ones
COD 4, COD 5 and COD
DOA 4 and older DOA
Fable 2 and Fable
Half Life 2 and Half Life
Age of Empires III versus I and II (which was basically I but in a different era setting).
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion vs Other Elder Scrolls
Despite the fact that elder scrolls auto fails because of the linear storyline based gameplay.
Morrowind is better then Oblivion.
Pontius Pilate
03-04-2009, 06:31
Yeah, sequels almost never turn out well. Can anyone give me an example of a sequel to a game that was better than the original??
EB II to EB
Oh yes, commendable use of adjective there. Yes, I was always a pessimistic, cynical skeptic myself.
Sooo, back on topic?
Yeah, sequels almost never turn out well. Can anyone give me an example of a sequel to a game that was better than the original??
the Halo series and quake series (at least till quake III) IMHO, but they are both FOS games.:clown:
the Halo series except for the single player getting worse from Halo 1 to Halo 2.
Aemilius Paulus
03-04-2009, 06:53
Alright. I am sorry to have asked that question. I already answered it myself. The first game of the series one usually tries is the one they like the best. AoE III was crap. Most old-time RTS players will say that.
Not necessarily that the sequels are bad but rather that once you have played the first game, a second, similar one does not have as many new things to be interested in. Basically a repetition with a dash of new features plus better graphics. It is always like that, right?
RTW has good graphics and gameplay. MTW has only one of the two: good gameplay. So why choose MTW? No, the AI is not any better; it is worse. Think of all the exploits in that game. No, the AI seems better because it has far less options. Just like chess, where the options are relatively severely restricted compared to something as complex as an RTT game, which is why chess computers are so good. This can be observed even more so with Shogun.
Anyone else agree?
Pontius Pilate
03-04-2009, 06:56
except for the single player getting worse from Halo 1 to Halo 2.
I'm really trying hard to not get way off topic here, but I actually think the single player improved in Halo 2. I really liked the inclusion of the Arbiter's storyline. gave a different perspective to what would have been your typical: humans v. aliens game.
A Very Super Market
03-04-2009, 06:58
... I didn't follow that.
Basically, you're saying that you like the first game because it is more familiar?
Pontius Pilate
03-04-2009, 06:59
[QUOTE=Aemilius Paulus;2159460]Alright. I am sorry to have asked that question.QUOTE]
it's okay. I think we all might have went overboard when naming like 50+ games though.:laugh4:
I found the battle AI seemed cannier in MTW than RTW, and I never noticed generals suiciding in MTW.
I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding campaign AI in MTW. The simple area-based movement channeled the AI into fairly simple options, so its easier to hardwire good and bad moves. It also suited the narrative really well.
I loved Warlords on the old Amiga, it was superior to the more complex (and moddable) Warlords 2 and the promising but ultimately worthless Warlords 3.
V.T. Marvin
03-04-2009, 08:22
Just for the old-timers: Dune II - a "sequel" far better, more complex, and in all relevant respect a wholly new game compared to its predecessor Dune (I). If all sequels would be like that, it would be like heaven on Earth :laugh4::painting:
As regards Elder Scrolls - Morrowind was far better game than Oblivion if vanillas are compared. Fortunately there are excellent mods for Oblivion (see tesnexus (http://www.tesnexus.com/) for the best collection of them) that make it even better than Morrowind once was (Oscuros Oblivion Overhaul, or OOO, is a must because it get you rid of the stupid vanilla levelling system).
I just hope that the moddability of Empires would allow the modders to make it a excellent game, even if vanilla proves itself to be not so good. But it is far far away. Now I am concerned only and solely about EB and EB II.:beam:
Well it installed it always likes to launch steam infact steam seems to be the only way to play it.
I set the graphics to medium for everthing and in fairness it ran quite well. The AI in the battle was quite smart in that he sent his cavarly to flank my artillery and then charged my general. I was thinking it was the same TW games just with muskets but he actually used a bit of tactical cunning which I applauded. Though I did just turn my infantry around and gun them all down. Artillery seems to bite holes in my infantry and its a case of getting the cavalry there as soon as possible. I like the fact I can turn the flags and markers off so it looks as though I am playing Mel Gibsons Patriot.
Overall I am quite impressed, not sure how the campaign map will play out as the game enables a 3 front war, Europe map (as we are familiar with), India and America.
I can see a turn taking a while to make. I am not being suckered in because I will never sacrifice my EB as I will never sacrifice my Full Roman Armour set ;)
Artillery seems to bite holes in my infantry and its a case of getting the cavalry there as soon as possible.
Yes the sniper cannons are quite strange.
Irenaeus
03-04-2009, 15:16
With Empire Total War being on Steam, I'm another one who's not buying it. I'll wait 8 years until it goes ino the Sold-Out bargain range (or something similar). Steam doesn't get on too well with my 64-bit Windows and I can wait out the DRM - and if it never comes out in Budget, then I'll just play more RTW!
delablake
03-04-2009, 16:21
The flaming demo doesn't work on my 2 GB/invidia HD2400/AMD 64x dual core/vista machine, it's all choppy and unmanageable:furious3:
-and I am NOT going to buy extra RAM for 100 Euro on top of the 50 Euro for the game. :dizzy2:
Instead, as my EB 1.2 doesn't run anymore (:wall:), I will patiently wait for EB II on MTW II and play mahjongg solitaire in the meantime.
Plus the "modern" era of the game isn't really my cup of tea...:thumbsdown:
Starforge
03-04-2009, 18:12
Despite the fact that elder scrolls auto fails because of the linear storyline based gameplay.
Morrowind is better then Oblivion.
And Daggerfall was better than Morrowind (unless, of course, you just happen to like the wierd alien landscapes which oddly enough seems to be a major selling point in MW's favor - then again, some people color their hair purple :shrug:)
Looking forward to ETW and even if it stinks I've gotten so much use out of RTW (with EB mostly) that I won't find the money ill-spent.
except for the single player getting worse from Halo 1 to Halo 2.
true that, but the multiplayer compensates, so its not all that bad.
Age of Empires III versus I and II (which was basically I but in a different era setting).
SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS
AoE III was shocking! It was a mighty fail compared to AoE II Conquerors.
EB was and still is a great game, but don't let it blind you from enjoying other games.
I'd agree. I like a spot of Civilisation now and then. Sadly, they always fail at combat.
No matter how much I love TW, I'm not going to let them force me to use steam. (Actually the problems isn't that I would have to use Steam but that I would have to use Stream.)
THIS THIS THIS
I already use it, and it pisses me off, but not enough to stop me buying it, which I have already done.
I think regardless of what everyone says, I think the way E: TW works could revolutionise EB (If we get that far [Please?]). Because the AI will certainly be improved, as it appears it has, we could finally get the AI we deserve.Also, opening trade routes in India and China would be fun... Hey! We may even be able to include India and China! *Head asplode*
E:TW would defiantly bring more to the table for EB More factions, regions, units , naval combat, actual AI, ... :idea2:
If only E:TW would finish downloading
:download:
Wait, do you HAVE to use Steam to play ETW single-player? That's one of the main reasons I haven't gotten Dawn of War II yet, I just don't want to be forced to use something like Steam.
Tiberius Claudius Marcellus
03-04-2009, 21:32
Graphics aside, how does it compare gameplay wise to "Cossacks" or "Empire Earth" ?
SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS
AoE III was shocking! It was a mighty fail compared to AoE II Conquerors.
:shrug: To each their own. I played I and II but not Conquerors. II seemed to me like a rehash of I with a different setting. III brought a lot more to the table, especially in the combat department.
Wait, do you HAVE to use Steam to play ETW single-player?
you can buy it just like any other game, but you have to update or authenticicate (something like that) through steam. I just didn't want to leave my computer or wait for it in the mail.
I MIGHT reconsider. Check this out.
https://g.imagehost.org/0672/OVER9000.jpg
9001 men in one unit.
Chirurgeon
03-04-2009, 22:59
I am not sure when the timeline for ETW is over but if it stops before the 1800s there is a lot of good fighting to be had before the invention of nasty things like machine guns and rifles. I can foresee either an expansion or new game based on Napoleon, American Civil War, Mexican American war, etc. The American Civil war had some serious tactics. I personally loved studying the civil war and have been itching to find a good game that lets you feel the combat with the campaign mode of the TW series. My guess is there would be an expansion that includes the major conflicst of the 1800s
Chirurgeon
03-04-2009, 23:01
I MIGHT reconsider. Check this out.
https://g.imagehost.org/0672/OVER9000.jpg
9001 men in one unit.
Now that is a friggin army!!
Lucio Domicio Aureliano
03-05-2009, 00:09
:furious3:
I MIGHT reconsider. Check this out.
https://g.imagehost.org/0672/OVER9000.jpg
9001 men in one unit.
Is that right? if so :2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup::2thumbsup:
Morrowind? Better than Oblivion?
Haha. It is to laugh.
Morrowind? Better than Oblivion?
Haha. It is to laugh.
Oblivion is a dumbed down version of MW for the attention-poor console interface generation. Sure its prettier, but they reduced intellectual and technological texture (eg no spears, no pauldrons and no detailed spell making) in favour of a square/triangle/circle mindset.
However the mods for Oblivion are excellent, as pointed out. People haven't given up on the franchise and a lot of the loyalty comes from Morrowind.
Oblivion is a dumbed down version of MW for the attention-poor console interface generation. Sure its prettier, but they reduced intellectual and technological texture (eg no spears, no pauldrons and no detailed spell making) in favour of a square/triangle/circle mindset.
However the mods for Oblivion are excellent, as pointed out. People haven't given up on the franchise and a lot of the loyalty comes from Morrowind.
Nein.
:music:~;p
the man with no name
03-05-2009, 03:53
Can i get a link to the demo plz?
No. They really couldn't. CA has to stay in the pre-1860 period, otherwise weapons start getting so accurate and long ranged that it'd be boring. Not to mention how weird it would be to have separate formations of men running around. There are no field battles pro-1860, there are military operations, thousand mile fronts, and loose formations that just wouldn't work with our point-and-move system.
WWI might be awkward, but they could probably do a Combat Mission style game with a campaign setting as well. It'd get rid of the huge armies and focus more on squads, but I don't see it as a huge jump.
Tiberius Claudius Marcellus
03-05-2009, 18:42
Graphics aside, how does it compare gameplay wise to "Cossacks" or "Empire Earth" ?
*COUGH*COUGH* Anyone able to answer this one?:idea2:
Aemilius Paulus
03-05-2009, 19:17
*COUGH*COUGH* Anyone able to answer this one?:idea2:
You mean how does ETW compare to the two? EEI is on my top five favourite games ever list. I just started playing the Cossack series. Both games are worth getting, trust me. Is there anything else you wanted to know?
seriously, he RTS/RTT game producers need to stop thinking so much about graphics. This is not FPS. Most people barely have time to zoom in and enjoy the view.
the man with no name
03-05-2009, 22:26
AP, I do not think that you are credible as an authority on this subject.
A. You've played ALL the hundreds of RTS out there?
B. You forget the true grandfather of RTS, The Ancient Art of War, as well as the godfather of RTS, Command and Conquer.
C. You dismiss every RTS made in the last decade, such as C&C titles, Warcraft, Empire Earth, Homeworld, etc. Not to mention that Warcraft is pretty much as old as Dune in its earliest form.
EMPIRE EARTH IS FUDGING AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I get it: you're all EE fanboys.
And graphics are very important for RTS's. If the whole game is basically leading troops on a battlefield from a tactical overhead view, then they'd better look good, or at least acceptable.
The realm of crap graphics is with the TBS.
Ok, I get it: you're all EE fanboys.
And graphics are very important for RTS's. If the whole game is basically leading troops on a battlefield from a tactical overhead view, then they'd better look good, or at least acceptable.
Dwarf Fortress is an RTSish game and its awesome, and it has ASCII graphics.
Graphics don't matter, wish peoeple would learn that.
So? There are good Flash RTS's, but if a retail game were at that level of graphical quality, no one would buy it.
Graphics do matter.
Well most retail games are crud these days.
Hell only indie games are worth buying anymore.
I think you are mistaken. But I guess it doesn't really matter in the end.
the man with no name
03-07-2009, 17:21
Ok, I get it: you're all EE fanboys.
And graphics are very important for RTS's. If the whole game is basically leading troops on a battlefield from a tactical overhead view, then they'd better look good, or at least acceptable.
The realm of crap graphics is with the TBS.
EE is not the greatest but it is pretty good.
the man with no name
03-07-2009, 17:22
Dwarf Fortress is an RTSish game and its awesome, and it has ASCII graphics.
Graphics don't matter, wish peoeple would learn that.
As long as graphics r ok i don't care.
I frogot too edit so sry about double post.
A Terribly Harmful Name
03-07-2009, 17:47
The original Cossacks was good in the day it was released.
However I think it's a tad bit obsolete for today. And Cossacks 2 is a bit of a bad game.
Never tried EE, neither IG.
I MIGHT reconsider. Check this out.
https://g.imagehost.org/0672/OVER9000.jpg
9001 men in one unit.
~:eek:
Might i ask where you got that screen from?
Olaf Blackeyes
03-07-2009, 22:37
Three things.
1.I have yet to get ETW so idk about it. Does anyone know if they improved the AI so that it doesnt just spam siege units or all heavies? And is the diplomacy improved as well so that it is no longer moronically suicidal?
2.EE is by far the best game i have played in a LONG, LONG time. I still keep it on my comp just for the nostalgia value.
3.The TW series started out GREAT with STW IMO. I still remember fondly playing that for hours on end. MTW i never got much into due to the fact that by the time i found a copy my comp had grown beyond it, and it didnt play properly. I had very few problems with the original game design. My only real complaint was the fact that the rebels could "magically" work together when they were from different clans/tribes, and overwhelm a single province, doing so again and again until your empire went under. The other faction also managed to magically get behind you if you left a SINGLE hole in your defenses, while fun to repel i also found this to be rather a cheap trick.
RTW was the pinnacle of the TW series IMHO. They fixed many AI bugs and allowed for a lot more strategic thinking. Instead of one map per province it was twenty or thirty. Navies were made far easier to use and naval invasions were fun to use. Of course the AI was still incredibly stupid, i dont think it has changed yet, but with ETW i could be wrong.
After Rome it became a game of improving graphics and nothing else. M2TW was a prime example of this. All they really did was remove the Clones feature, add blood, and make the graphics more realistic. No AI improvements ect. I hope ETW breaks this cycle but you never know.
A Very Super Market
03-07-2009, 22:45
The AI in ETW is greatly improved, as they are now integrated with diplomatic relations. If a nation is friendly towards you, it won't declare war unless you leave your border completely undefended or something stupid like that. And vice versa.
The AI in battles is debatable for now, but I think it has improved quite a bit. The armies I come across are well-balanced, and they usually put up a decent fight. Sieges are still a problem though.
Olaf Blackeyes
03-07-2009, 22:49
Another siege question.
Did they improve the unit pathfinding inside the walls?
Because i HATE the utterly stupid Unit pathfinding in M2TW and to a lesser extent RTW. As soon as one soldier goes into combat the ENTIRE unit freeze and you have to run them through the enemy unit just to get the to engage properly. :furious3::furious3::furious3::furious3:
A Terribly Harmful Name
03-07-2009, 23:26
"Pathfinding in M2TW" - gives me the fond memory of looping units getting slaughtered while they were frozen issuing the same orders during an AI assault.
:P
Chirurgeon
03-08-2009, 03:13
Just upgraded my computer to take full advantage of the ETW graphics. I was amazed at the competence of the AI. The campaign map has some major changes as well. In one battle where an almost equal number of the enemy sallied out to attack me the enemy put its militia troops in front of my main line while flanking it with Cavalry on both sides. I employed my cavalry only on the left flank so although i routed them my cavalry had to rush over to my right to save the right flank. With my cavalry gone the enemy then used infantry of the line and set them up in a flanking maneuver on my left flank. I was running around crazy trying to keep things under control. The biggest thing? Their general never did a suicide charge. He stayed back issuing orders. I was thoroughly impressed.
The campaign map has a whole new approach to economics that I for one like. You have to research technologies which can be sped up with a "gentlemen". He is a sort of scholar. you put him in a school to do this. You can put him in a school/university because your resources are stand alone areas on the map. Say you control a city and a region. Within that region you have a timber yard, iron mine, silver mine, and smaller towns that focus on things like weaving, iron making, or education. You have to pick their focus. Plus enemies can raid into your lands and smash your economies. They might pillage your mines or your farms. It happened to me. They do not have to attack your town to hurt you in the pocket book. Imagine if in EB each resource was clickable and you could upgrade it as soon as a new technology was researched, or if you stole it. You click on a farm or vineyard and you are given options. Of course if you do not like to micromanage you can set it up automatically. And from what I hear when you get alot of regions you can see everything just by looking at the campaign map cities. You do not have to open a city to see if something can be built. Overall I am very impressed with the format. The AI is smart and the campaign map has a whole new depth to it.
Overall a very good game in my limited time playing it.
We shall fwee...Wodewick
03-08-2009, 12:12
~:eek:
Might i ask where you got that screen from?
I can't tell you where he got it from, but I can tell you whats happened. If you go into the config files you can change the number of men in a unit, you do it by applying a different value. That is enormous though, the most I have seen is 1200 so far and someone made an army of them. Thing is with these increased numbers:
A: A battle that huge will probably make your graphics card commit suicide
B: The pathfinding can't handle something that massive
I think it would be cool if I had 10,383,942,593,790,374 GB of ram and several hundred graphics cards linked up to have 2x100,000 armies.
I can't tell you where he got it from, but I can tell you whats happened. If you go into the config files you can change the number of men in a unit, you do it by applying a different value. That is enormous though, the most I have seen is 1200 so far and someone made an army of them. Thing is with these increased numbers:
A: A battle that huge will probably make your graphics card commit suicide
B: The pathfinding can't handle something that massive
I think it would be cool if I had 10,383,942,593,790,374 GB of ram and several hundred graphics cards linked up to have 2x100,000 armies.
Hmm so CA removed the hardcoded limits for unit size, huh. Very interesting... :2thumbsup:
I have played ETW relative insensively the last days and I have mixed feelings. The campaign AI is clearly better than ever which is very comfortable. Diplomacy works. You can search tech trees and micromanage your provinces. Nice, but I am not so eager to do it the next campaigns in the same way time after time.
Every nation has grossly the same units which look exactly the same except for uniform colours. Nearly no regional units. Every single soldier is a clone. If this is the tribute to generally better graphics I would prefer the older system of M2TW. Unit recruitment is silly like in all other TW vanillas. It is comfortable that I can recruit my Prussian elite Guards cavalry immediatly after conquering an Indian province directly in that province but... (perhaps there was already a hidden Prussian community with recruits before). No mercenaries available which is ok for Europe, but not so for the colonies where cooperation with native troops was essential.
The battles are ok but not revolutionary. I'm really interested in 18th c. warfare and ETW is quite good in representing it imho, in the limits of the game of course.
The tech tree is sometimes useful, sometimes funny. It is typical mainstream. Searching for cadenced marching will increase your range on the campaign map. Silly, because it was the fundament of all the modern battle movements of the Prussians who first (re)introduced it and had nothing to do with marching to battles. You can search for rank firing which was the norm already in the late 1500's and the whole 1600's but the true innovations (iron ramrod f.e.) you cannot search for. Ok, there must something been left to do for modders of course.
In the game mechanics something is nice but something extremely annoying. I like it that you can change the way of armies and agents on the campaign map after clicking. I hate it that you can not speed them up by right clicking. They crawl slowly over the map and you can spend your time watching and watching. I'm also annoyed by the fact that in battles a chosen unit is not highlighted on the minimap. And the banner of a selected unit is not moving up and down, so you cannot see what unit you have selected if you selected it in the unit frame (perhaps I just have not the right settings).
For modding there may be great chances as soon as the tools necessary will be offered. I hope it will be not difficult to create many new units with different looks. If not the game is of no great interest for me in the longer run. What I like the most in EB beneath the historical context are the many different units and the differences between the cultures. If ETW would allow this too it would be great. Meanwhile I'm back to EB.
Starforge
03-09-2009, 01:37
I would disagree that there are no unique units - I've found quite a few as Poland-Lith (not so many as UK which are the only 2 I've finished so far.) Problem is (and I find this true in EB or any other iteration of TW games) is that while having the extras are nice and even, perhaps, historic there's no reason to recruit anything other than certain standard troop types. Some elite units (Hessians, Household Cavalry to name a couple) have limited recruitment pools to prevent perpetual all-elite unhistoric stacks.
No argument that many of the units looks similar (at least for the European nations.) Would that not be historical (seriously - just asking.)
I, too, have my problems with the campaign, diplomacy, etc but still enjoying it. Every game I play has some issues and games this complex (in terms of size and scope) will have more than their fair share. I'm willing to be patient for a while to let them hammer out some of the issues. Yes, I know, I hate public betas as well but it's a rare game released these days that doesn't do it.
A Very Super Market
03-09-2009, 03:00
Hessians don't seem to be elite at all. They are actually quite bad.
Anyways, I don't think CA expected anyone to conquer India as Prussia, but the Dutch have quite a few colonidal units, as do the French, British, and Spaniards.
Russians have cossacks, as well as a few others
Ottomans are completely unique
Marathas has ELEPHANTS!
THe British have the most detailed unit roster, from highlanders, to coldstream guards.
antisocialmunky
03-09-2009, 04:17
In the game mechanics something is nice but something extremely annoying. I like it that you can change the way of armies and agents on the campaign map after clicking. I hate it that you can not speed them up by right clicking.
I think you can still press space. Barring the space bar you can always paint it red to make it go faster.
A Very Super Market
03-09-2009, 04:40
Actually, you can now do other stuff while they walk, but is nice if you're a big faction.
Starforge
03-09-2009, 05:12
Hessians don't seem to be elite at all. They are actually quite bad.
Aye - should have said "special" or "unique" instead of Elite.
Anyone noticed yet that there is no AI naval invasions, as in zero..?
No one invades India(well out of Europeans), or Caribbean islands or anything that is locked by water(South America).
Chirurgeon
03-09-2009, 21:55
Anyone noticed yet that there is no AI naval invasions, as in zero..?
No one invades India(well out of Europeans), or Caribbean islands or anything that is locked by water(South America).
Wow. What is it about CA not able to get the whole naval invasion thing down. I am currently playing the Road to Independence campaign and I am in episode four. I am wondering if England will send ships full of Redcoats once I start capturing the 13 colonies. It doesnt sound like it.
Starforge
03-09-2009, 22:12
Anyone noticed yet that there is no AI naval invasions, as in zero..?
No one invades India(well out of Europeans), or Caribbean islands or anything that is locked by water(South America).
That has been my observation as well.
Issues I've noticed (though again - patch coming shortly so not going to jump on the "game sucks" bandwagon since I'm enjoying it despite some flaws.)
- Very infrequent AI turn processing CTD.
- No naval invasions
- The AI won't ever run even when faced down 20-1 odds.
- Infrequent data error resulting in CTD when selecting a stack.
- Infrequent data error resulting in CTD when trying to merge 2 of the same unit.
- AI rolls its army on the campaign map toward certain points - IE Austria in my game as P-L stacked 5 full stacks near the border with Venice even though they were getting picked at by Saxony, Russia and France. Those units alone would have crushed Saxony, kicked the few units Russia had pushed through me (their ally) out of Austria and given even France a run for it's money. Instead they did nothing.
- troubled by an AI with massive armies and navies? Simple - take their provinces (which they aren't great at defending) in one fell swoop and magically the armies and navies you would at the very least suffer pains defeating simply disappear.
- Land AI tactics seem good at times but it reacts very poorly once you've managed to outmaneuver it. This gets worse once you've gotten access to decent artillery and teched up your line infantry. This could be due to the fact that the AI makes some poor choices of army consistancy. For example: I've been rushed by stacks of recruited Native American bowmen by the Spainish. Seems even Colonial militia or Colonial Line infantry with proper support would be more proper. Bowmen can be difficult at the beginning with limited manpower and tech but once you have fire by rank researched they merely die well.
- Poor fleet composition though some of the richer nations have suprised me (and kicked my arse.) Nothing like expecting the usual schooners, brigs or galleys and run into second and third rates. Since the AI won't run away I houserule myself the same - makes for some interesting fights at times.
- The AI seems to have an obsession with building churches. As an old programmer I wonder if they have something in the code that says something to the effect of "If province not fully state religion then build church." Not sure that there is a trigger or any mechanism to actually replace buildings once the province is converted.
That's the highlights (lowlights?) Again - I'm enjoying the game in spite of the flaws and looking forward to the patch since some of the above is already known and listed as to be fixed. The AI issues, I'm guessing, will probably take more time if ever. Some of the issues you can houserule yourself past (something I'm used to from pretty much every TW game played including EB) in order to keep it challenging.
Sorry for the long post - kinda took on a life of it's own :beam:
Wow. What is it about CA not able to get the whole naval invasion thing down. I am currently playing the Road to Independence campaign and I am in episode four. I am wondering if England will send ships full of Redcoats once I start capturing the 13 colonies. It doesnt sound like it.
Well , don't dream of it . I got to 1786 only to discover that original Rebel island are still rebels,and India was never visited by British and others (except 2 starting colonies of Portugal and Netherlands).
At this point i uninstalled game, till they fix it .
As for campaign (non) AI....you gonna have to discover it yourself.It is rather hard to describe it in only few words...
As i earlier said, i am sticking with EB for now, preferring it's non-existent AI (not EB fault) over ETW err, lets quote it "advanced AI".
P.S. Good observation Starforge.
Olaf Blackeyes
03-10-2009, 03:47
Ok a list of problems that CA HAS YET TO FIX after 5 games;
1.Naval invasions. PERIOD!
2.Suicidal Battle AI
3.Unimaginative AI, it gives up at the first total loss, or all it does is send stack after stack at you from the same ****** direction. EB DOESNT have the first problem thankfully.
4.No AOR, this is annoying. CA basically MAKES games that change the course of history and yet they refuse to allow all the factions in their games to recruit local units and you can recruit elite and special units in a province you just conquered if its got a high lvl barracks.
5.AI that can handle debt, armies, and maganing a nation without using the Sh*t $$ script.
6.Effective use of agents and "other" options.
It has been 5 games now and they are still on these snags. Granted i dont think we WANT Terminator smart AI. But this is pathetic. As soon as you play a faction once all you gotta do is repeat the same moves over and over again to win that campaign. The AI is always "reactionary", and the player ALWAYS has to start the sh*t b4 the AI will swing into action. And even then all it is doing is defending and trying to overwhelm the front it is fighting on.
Just a few beefs i got with CA.
antisocialmunky
03-10-2009, 23:09
It pretty hard to build RTS AIs honestly. Hardest thing to do with video games.
I wonder if there is a patch in the works? I general the upgrades like BI and MTWGold have improved the core game (even if the add-on itsel sucked, eg Alex).
Nein.
:music:~;p
I just been Gen Y'd! Cheeky boy, I defend to the death your right to your opinion...but wait, where's you pauldron? Huh? Huh?
It pretty hard to build RTS AIs honestly. Hardest thing to do with video games.
... i dont think we WANT Terminator smart AI...
Yep, we're pretty safe there. CA: building pretty good games yet safeguarding Sarah Connor at the same time.
I would love to have the choice of choosing an "Extreme/Very Hard" AI that is preprogrammed with the strategies of a hundred great commanders and can make its own decisions based on its "training" and past experiences with you.
I can't wait for _TW4, in which I will order my cavalry to charge the enemy cyclops and the advisor will pop up and say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that." (My name is David, which is a bonus)
So basically, if chess AI can kick your ass, then so should RTS AI.
...I can't wait for _TW4, in which I will order my cavalry to charge the enemy cyclops and the advisor will pop up and say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that." (My name is David, which is a bonus)...
The fantasy "Cyclops" unit will have the lamest AI available unfortunately, but will be spammed in awesomely large stacks. Anyway, how do you know about me and HAL being close?
I wonder if more houserule-type limitations would help? For eg with force composition. If a faction (AI or human) wants to raise forces they get a fairly standardised mix depending on the settlement/faction/policysettings (a bit EU I know). This can be tweaked so you get more elites or more cav or whatever, but basically you call up your peeps and they bringb what they bring. This might help with spamming and the problem of "too many choices to make the right one".
Just speculatin'.
We shall fwee...Wodewick
03-11-2009, 13:14
5.AI that can handle debt, armies, and maganing a nation without using the Sh*t $$ script.
Wasn't the EB solution just to give the AI limitless money via the script? Not a dig at the team as I'm guessing they have to work with what they're given, but the EB solution works pretty well in my eyes.
A Terribly Harmful Name
03-11-2009, 20:20
No it doesn't. A capable AI is undoubtely better than an overtly cheating one.
Especially because I hate how powerful factions such as the Romani can seemingly throw endless stacks of mercenaries at you nonstop because of the bonus they receive.
Q.Dellius
03-11-2009, 20:43
I bought Empire:Total war (very) recently, and although I am probably not known in the forums... I've played EB as a hardcore addiction for a long time, often upsetting my significant other :wall:
To the point: E:TW is actually quite good in my opinion. The AI is definitely improved; funny story about that. The French opened diplomatic relations which actually had fair trades involved. In contrast to: "Give me back all the regions you took from me and that's that." To clarify, I was playing as Prussia and they have a largely land based war ahead of them because money is a little harder to come by (also in contrast to the Romani, who will at some point have a bottomless wallet). So, anyway I wanted to get involved in overseas trade and colonization (why not?) and these French were offering a little island in the Carribean (Windward Isles, I think) which was perfect to get started and surprising considering they wanted peace/trade/and some technology.
Aside from the new diplomatic system, the battle AI seems the same or better. It's harder to judge because clearly there's a different battle strategy. To say the least, I've yet to win any battle that I should've lost; like in EB hiring a few misthophoroi phalangitai to cover any holes in my walls during a siege. Auto-resolve is worthwhile, but I definitely suggest enjoying what the TW series is good for.
And last but not least the Naval battles are a whole-lot-a-fun. More so, because it's not as easy as you'd think they'd make it. Auto-resolve is more effective then my own command (I'm getting better though) Nothing like a full-broadside being fired into an enemy ship that just makes me do one of those victory arm-pumps :beam: (If you've never done that, you're not playing right!)
Anyway, to close... I love EB and I'll never forget all of the 100+ hours I've enjoyed. And much as I love EB (and in essence the whole team for making it) the CTDs are a major turn-off. Mind you, I had no problem starting new campaigns as the same nation and doing the same things over again which ultimately made me a really good EB player (as the Romani, at least). Almost forgot... how much I learned from EB, history-wise. You guys tricked me into learning so much about a period of time that I often am let down by many a history professor who gives wrong information.
-Q. Dellius
P.S. sorry coffee just makes me talkative:dizzy2:
P.P.S. EB.com will always be a safe bet for some good reading and time filler btw
sgsandor
03-12-2009, 19:40
E TW is ok. I thought there would be more to it, but there is not. The tec tree was new to TW, but gets lame imho, I dont like alot of the mechanics, how the towns and villages work, although it was a new approach. The units all looking alike was fine by me, as besides color what was the difference in most european musket driven armies? Good game yes, could it have been better? absolutly! I bought it played for 72 hours, my computer crashed the same amount of times, and i get CTD when i win the revolution as either side. Whats the point of this? I spent 50 bucks on RTW, the more on BI both were awesome. MTW another 50, MTW K i bought just for EB II and now this for another 50. Hopefully someone will mod E TW into something that is worth the time and effort to play. Again, not bad mouthing the game just letting out my opinion, which is I should have just stuck with EB and as far as a new game wait for EB II:2thumbsup:
Starforge
03-13-2009, 00:25
E TW is ok. I thought there would be more to it, but there is not. The tec tree was new to TW, but gets lame imho, I dont like alot of the mechanics, how the towns and villages work, although it was a new approach. The units all looking alike was fine by me, as besides color what was the difference in most european musket driven armies? Good game yes, could it have been better? absolutly! I bought it played for 72 hours, my computer crashed the same amount of times, and i get CTD when i win the revolution as either side. Whats the point of this? I spent 50 bucks on RTW, the more on BI both were awesome. MTW another 50, MTW K i bought just for EB II and now this for another 50. Hopefully someone will mod E TW into something that is worth the time and effort to play. Again, not bad mouthing the game just letting out my opinion, which is I should have just stuck with EB and as far as a new game wait for EB II:2thumbsup:
Patched yesterday which helped.
Patch coming in a week or so which I'm assuming will help more.
They seem more responsive than they were with M2TW :shrug:
I'm betting that shortly you'll have a game that's very very stable. My concern is that even over the long term the AI is likely to see little improvement.
Anyone else wish they could play some of the minor countries for a challenge? :yes:
Chirurgeon
03-13-2009, 04:00
didnt know they made a patch. Yes I think being able to play the minor countries would be really cool.
antisocialmunky
03-13-2009, 04:49
You can when they figure out how the files work for ETW.
I just modifed my preferences to support ultra resolution. Its much prettier than just 'high.' The units can have modible faces but they only come with 2 per unit by default... :( Still no word yet on if we can have some uniform variety.
Severian Huizi
03-14-2009, 01:37
Creative Assembly obviously took a long, hard look at Paradox Interactive games--Victoria and Europa Universalis 3 in particular--while designing their latest Total War title.
Empire Total War's strategic-level map and its pretty and in-depth information windows is a dead ringer for EU3's. The new technology research trees and national prestige tally calls to mind Victoria. The problem is that the similarities are only so at first glance.
One of the best things about Victoria was the way it modeled a balance of power between nations. Prestige was more or less a scoring system, but with many more implications than simply "nation with the highest number by Year X wins," a la Empire. Prestige could be won or lost depending on your actions: furthering Western culture and technology was a boost, declaring excessive wars of aggression against nations, especially those of Western Europe, a massive detriment. Lose too much prestige and you earned those infamous "bad boy points," a representation of international hostility toward your country. The number determined the effectiveness of your diplomacy and the willingness of civilized nations to declare war on your unsavory practices.
There lies another of Victoria's innovations, the split between "civilized" (Westernized and industrialized) and "uncivilized" nations. A colonial power suffered no bad boy penalty for subjugating countries deemed uncivilized, so playing as said "savages", you had a vested interest in pushing your country toward civilized status by building up prestige, culture and technology. I'm somewhat surprised CA didn't implement a similar system into Empire. The effect was that, at least in Western Europe where every nation was oh so civil, a balance was struck. No one could really go blitzkrieg on the continent without international outrage and an endless stream of declarations of war dropping on top of your head. So, naturally, you looked outward. No historical basis to that, right? Pure sci-fi.
The pick of time period for Empire is a little strange as well. Not to say that the 18th Century, with its upheavals, aren't interesting, but just to a layman of history it seems like CA chose a "safe" century in between two others filled with so much ripe material. The thing is, CA's technique since the beginning has been to go with time periods readily identifiable to the layman. Everyone has a general idea of what samurai, Roman legionaries and medieval knights are like. My guess is that they skipped over the Renaissance and the Thirty Years' War because the layman doesn't readily associate the Renaissance with warfare at all, and what the hell is the Thirty Years' War? My question then is why did they choose the 1700s over the incredibly ripe 1800s?
It seems shocking that the game ends in 1799, right before Napoleon, until you realize that's almost certainly cut off to be packaged into the expansion and/or the sequel. As for the sequel, the "evolutionary" game, the logical assumption for this gunpowder-based engine is either the 19th Century or a Thirty Years' War game, the latter of which is already hinted at as most nations start out with a few regiments of obsolete pike squares. Perhaps if that happens it means we're seeing the beginning of a newfound urge in CA to venture into lesser-known periods in history and we can finally get that Asia Total War game set in the pre-Mongol 13th Century that plenty of Total War fanatics want so badly (including me).
Watch as everyone's predictions go wrong and we get Pern: Total War.
Aemilius Paulus
03-14-2009, 03:07
Creative Assembly obviously took a long, hard look at Paradox Interactive games--Victoria and Europa Universalis 3 in particular--while designing their latest Total War title.
Well, they DID NOT TAKE A LOOK AT COSSACKS!!! :furious3:
Those were excellent series, and their portrayal of the late 17th-19th centuries was marvellous and innovative. Especially the way they came up with the varying lethality over range, as indicated by green, yellow, and red zones around a selected unit.
Starforge
03-14-2009, 03:44
Yes, there are some similarities between Pdox and this game. The time period and some of the very basics make it feel similar. So much so that I loaded up EU3 (well, MMplat) for a few minutes then I realised that appearances are thoroughly deceiving.
Just a few mins with EU3 even with MMplat (which is the only reason it's playable - like EB to RTW) makes me realise just how bad the combat, diplomacy, warscore, AI pathing, combat (worth mentioning twice), etc. is.
ETW is, well, more simplistic - but more fun (my op.) It also suffers from poor AI but at least the combat is still 100 times better (at least.) You also don't fall asleep for an hour or more (real time) waiting for badboy to drop :). I can't help it - I'm an evil landgrubbing b*stard :)
Adrenaline game versus thinking game as it were with not a lot of adrenaline and not much thinking required :).
Merging the 2 would be far more satisfying (with an improved AI for both) but as is they both fall short of being a complete game.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.