Marten
02-20-2010, 14:17
Short summary from review in "Gamestar":
Graphics: better than Empire, polished effects
Sound: also very good, great music
Balance: good tutorials, helpful tooltips, unit balancing good, sometimes weird calculation in auto-calc battle
Atmosphere: Historicaly correct events, the author critisizes the "limited map of europe"
Handling (hey, we are germans): good interface, the author liked the "empire style" more (like me), loading times equal to empire
AI: Mostly better than Empire, more aggressive in campaign, but sometimes also weird behaviour in battle and campaign, diplomatic behaviour a "bit" better, sometimes ai generals act like in the old times of medieval warfare ... you know what he means, don't you? :embarassed:
Multiplayer: In summary good, sometimes heavy "lag" and loading times
The italian campaign: ~5 hours (36 turns), he missed surprises or important events.
The egyptian campaign: In his opinion better (~5 hours ->62 turns), "More action and tactical elements"
European Campaign: You can start with the campaign of the coalition (~ 15 - ... hours -> 192 turns), but for france you have to play the first two campaigns. In his opionion the best part of N:TW. Trade and management is compared to Empire less important and gameplay and "feel" of N:TW is more "casual".
Their conclusion: The best "Napoleonic" game so far, but not the best TW. Means 84% (or 8,4 / 10), they gave Empire 90% last year (and always said they played maybe Empire 1.8), Cossacks2 got 77% and Imperial Glory 65%. They reviewed the game with 2 authors, one a complete TW-Aficionado. He regrets that empire will never get the better stuff ...
After reading the article (4 pages - empire got 8!) and watching the vid i am not willing to buy it ... but that's just me.
Edith says: There is a subforum for Napoleon? .... Can someone please remove it?
Marten
Graphics: better than Empire, polished effects
Sound: also very good, great music
Balance: good tutorials, helpful tooltips, unit balancing good, sometimes weird calculation in auto-calc battle
Atmosphere: Historicaly correct events, the author critisizes the "limited map of europe"
Handling (hey, we are germans): good interface, the author liked the "empire style" more (like me), loading times equal to empire
AI: Mostly better than Empire, more aggressive in campaign, but sometimes also weird behaviour in battle and campaign, diplomatic behaviour a "bit" better, sometimes ai generals act like in the old times of medieval warfare ... you know what he means, don't you? :embarassed:
Multiplayer: In summary good, sometimes heavy "lag" and loading times
The italian campaign: ~5 hours (36 turns), he missed surprises or important events.
The egyptian campaign: In his opinion better (~5 hours ->62 turns), "More action and tactical elements"
European Campaign: You can start with the campaign of the coalition (~ 15 - ... hours -> 192 turns), but for france you have to play the first two campaigns. In his opionion the best part of N:TW. Trade and management is compared to Empire less important and gameplay and "feel" of N:TW is more "casual".
Their conclusion: The best "Napoleonic" game so far, but not the best TW. Means 84% (or 8,4 / 10), they gave Empire 90% last year (and always said they played maybe Empire 1.8), Cossacks2 got 77% and Imperial Glory 65%. They reviewed the game with 2 authors, one a complete TW-Aficionado. He regrets that empire will never get the better stuff ...
After reading the article (4 pages - empire got 8!) and watching the vid i am not willing to buy it ... but that's just me.
Edith says: There is a subforum for Napoleon? .... Can someone please remove it?
Marten