Empire 2 Total War

[edyzmedieval]

It's needed. :knight:

No really, it's needed. While I do understand that CA has some reticence with regards to a future E2TW, the fact is that... the series needs a new Empire. It won't be the next game, because they announced a new era, but it's needed a refresh of the original.

Why? :book:

Well, for starters, it's the sheer scope that offers so much fun. I played Empire TW again for some time recently and it turned out to be quite the fun. Granted, I enjoyed my Empire TW time beforehand as well, because I started about a year after it was released so it was patched up considerably and offered a smooth experience. Nevertheless, the sheer scope of the game offered so much fun, so many possibilities and it clearly gave some interesting strategical options to consider, particularly if you play with the larger empires such as British or Spanish.

2 more aspects that are unique to Empire - trade (again, because of the scope), which makes the game a sort of a commercial tycoon type game, and it's fantastic. Second, the specific time frame which bridges between late medieval/gunpowder with modern eras. Case in point - you fighting with ships of the line with sails against steamships. It many ways, playing with one of the bigger empires is a real delight, which is not usually the case in a Total War game as it can easily become a simple steamroller job to finish the game. But the multitude of options, strategic complexities and historical events (United States - 1776) makes it a standout.

Bonus points - the Road to Independence campaign. :balloon2:

Plus, having overseas territories can really help you in the case of European mainland protracted wars, acting as an economic and military support for your empire. Obviously not present in other TW games because of the time frame, but it still is a very neat detail.

Thoughts?

:bow:

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, yes and yes.

ETW has been, for the SP experience, my favourite total war. I think I enjoyed the battles and the multiplayer more in the earlier titles but for the campaign map ETW was my favourite.

The campaign map was huge, I liked little touches like being able to take territory in India without a diplomatic penalty. I loved the trade as well, started a new Dutch campaign recently in within a few turns I was making thousands in profit thanks to trade (and the trade zones)

I'd find myself supporting a protectorate taking territory whereas in other TW's I would usually race my own protectorate or ally to take it first for myself.

Whenever I have played another TW since ETW I end up feeling the campaign map is too small...

[edyzmedieval]

Indeed!

Now, we can only hope for an ETW2 or at least something similar, like Victorian TW...

[Risasi]

I think you've talked me into it. I sincerely hope that they make an Empire 2, but...

- Start at least a century earlier. I would like to see some Pike & Shot battle action. 30 years war, Ivan the Terrible and Romanov history of Rus. Heck, even the Mongols could make a guest star appearance.

- Borders. Considering the multiple buildings in a province of Empire, and the province/region system introduced in Rome 2, I believe that they need to re-think borders. I'd like to see a "soft" border system implemented. Did anyone ever play "Rise of Nations". The affects of tech and wonders, and other variables would "push" one's border against their neighbor and change the sphere of influence over the land mass. I think something similar would better represent how empires are built and wax and wane with time. Specifically France and their one province in the original Empire is what made me think of this. You still have a region capital, but then a "sphere of influence" pushing out from there.

- The follow up "expansion" standalone title could then be the Victorian age.

- This is a tough nut to crack, but they need to better represent asynchronous warfare. Think guerrilla tactics exhibited by indigenous tribes in the Americas and Africa (example: the general can hide also). This will be needed for the Victorian period.

If they flesh out these points I will definitely look into getting the game. If they don't, eh...I'll probably just stick to Empire

[edyzmedieval]

Starting a bit earlier can cause some problems as it would lengthen the game and overimpose two distinct warfare periods that have things in common but many differences. It might be hard for more inexperienced TW players to adapt as the time goes on.

Borders, agreed here, your proposal sounds quite interesting. :yes: It would make agents much more important. Although to be fair, they were fairly important in ETW, because of the penalties that came with having two universities in one single province.

[Risasi]

What if it were separated into an early campaign and a late campaign, a la Medieval 2? And one could pick to start around 1560-1600'ish for pike and musket and glimmering cuirassiers and knights, or the late campaign which starts around 1700 where it's mostly line infantry musket and cannon.

Then the Victorian Era could still be an expansion pack that would turn the base game into early, middle and late campaigns. That way one could play through from the 17th century into the 19th century if they wanted, or just pick a period.

---

I did some more thinking upon their province system. They need to somehow represent balkanization.

Perhaps through tweaking their existing horde system they could represent a rival faction uprising and creating their own capital? (Or dead factions re-emerging) Thus splitting a region into two.
With border push different towns and farms would fall under the direct control of a faction, but via this border push strength, resource buildings could change hands to another faction. I think this is an argument for many smaller regions and capital cities and border control being a separate layer on the map from the resource layer.

This would add another dimension to the game because the diplomatic aspects of having to deal with uprisings from within your territories would need to be controlled. It also creates scenarios for rebellions and civil wars. Do I crush them? Vassalize them? Leave them alone and build an alliance and trade with them?

I think this would give a more organic feel to how empires and their control change geographically over time.

[edyzmedieval]

Adding two different campaigns would require two different games in terms of content - the number of unique units is really important, at least to me, and ETW delivered in that regard only after you purchase all of the DLC Packs. In fact, the best game when it comes to unique units is Napoleon TW where the French are literally swamped with unique units and it's fantastic.

But you cannot sustain this level of content creation unless you have a team that's twice the size of the current one, to create at least 4-5 unique units for each faction to give the player the sense that they do in fact play in two different periods.

Quite hard.

[Risasi]

Yeah, you're probably right.

Well, if I'm just wishing for rainbows and unicorns I'm still hoping for an Empire 2, but like FotS they then follow up with a Standalone Expansion of the Renaissance Era, with Pike & Shot.

And then a Victorian Era expansion, a la RotS. Then I'd still like to see them tie all three together for the loooooong campaign play-thru, spanning all three eras? Maybe, just preserve the territories owned going into the next era. How about that? I'd pay extra for DLC expansions that do this.

That would get me what I want (and many others who liked Empire). It would let the guy who only wants to play one era do that.

[edyzmedieval]

It would balloon the production costs immensely, and while it would be super rewarding for us players, it would translate to either a huge marketing campaign to make sure they sell enough copies or a ton of DLC packs. Not to mention a much longer development time.

[Risasi]

You are very good at playing devil's advocate. :smile:

[edyzmedieval]

:grin2:

All jokes aside, I am the first one to advocate for a TW game with a huge amount of content. The French in NTW example again - you can build 2 full stack armies with INDIVIDUAL units. Like literally it has around 30-35 units that are all different.

Yes, that includes artillery and other standard units. But it can give you at least a full stack of unique, historical units.

And I love that!

But it's just one single faction, in one single game, focused on that specific faction (Napoleon TW). Sooo... yeah.

[Risasi]

I never did buy Napoleon. I got turned off by all of the people howling about how it should have been nothing more than an expansion to Empire.

Since I finished my Shogun 2 campaign I was going to start another Rome II campaign, but perhaps it's time to reinstall Empire again and give it another go-round.
I mainly have toyed around in the Warpath campaign. My wife is full blood Native American, and I'm a mutt American with a couple of tribes in me too, so I like that campaign just to start a counter revolt to kick those "white devils" out of our lands. :whip: ...even though it's not very well representative of the indigenous tribes.

Maybe this time I should give the French or Prussians a good solid 100 turns of play or something. I feel like I have never played far enough in Empire, and have not really touched the European factions. Just enough to play around a little to get a feel for it. The question then is Vanilla or look at one of the mods again? I've installed DM 8 in the past, and also Terra Incognita. I think the latter really has some serious potential if they keep developing it.

EDIT: My bad. I meant Imperial Splendour. TI development stopped a few years ago. They are still working on IS though...

[edyzmedieval]

Go for Vanlla first, enjoy the scope of the game and the commercial empiring that you can do. :yes:

[Vuk]

I didn't like Napoleon. To me, the strength of the TW series is the sandbox experience. NTW was too controlled and narrow. It really did not interest me at all, and I gave it a fair shot, then tried it again a few years later. ETW was the worst game they ever released at the time of its launch, but it was eventually patched into one of the best the series has ever done. NTW had all the polish one could ask for, but still stunk IMHO.

[edyzmedieval]

Napoleon indeed had some really good polishing - which made it all the more worthwhile to do especially when it came to battles. Hence why NTW has some really enjoyable battles because of the variety of units and better tactics.

[GRANTO]

Get the imperial destroyer mod ... its the best empire experience i have played.

[edyzmedieval]

I was thinking actually that a combo between Napoleon and ETW would be a great game. Particularly the units in NTW and battle tactics upgraded.

[Risasi]

Even though it appears that we will not see a spiritual successor to Empire anytime in the next 3-5 years, this thread still needs some love.



Get the imperial destroyer mod ... its the best empire experience i have played.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I tried to find an answer over the weekend, but struck out. Does anyone know if Warpath is supported in Imperial Destroyer?

---

I tried to play an Empire campaign at the beginning of the year, but the bugs...instead I committed to actually finishing a Rome II campaign for once. Now that I've finished with that about a month ago I decided to give Attila another go, but I'm just not feeling it. I don't know what it is About Attila. So I flipped a coin between FoTS and Empire and now I'm playing a Warpath campaign.

- Any representation of Amerindians in an Empire 2 demands to have Attila's horde mechanics and super sneaky battle units like the Lusitani in Rome II or Celt faction pack in Attila. Better ambush abilities too. And for crying out loud, let me hide my general too.

- They also need a 'raid' option, which could just be an agent unit. I want some socio-economic asynchronous warfare. Burn crops, pillage trade routes and cut off transport lines to resources.

- This current region/province system from R2/Attila does not seem like a good fit. I would rather see some more Shogun 2 like territories, but smaller. More aggregation. I'm thinking of France and its one region problem. Also special resources only found in specific regions, metals, ivory, herds/crops, timber, etc. And lack of special resources which hurts trade/economy and ability to built certain kinds of military units.

[edyzmedieval]

We will get ETW2 later though.

As for bugs - very few for me in ETW.