Printable View
Well, I have been contemplating on whether or not to ETW latley and I have a question. How much harder than RTW is ETW in terms of strategy? Like what makes it harder? Also is it fun? I don't want to offend anyone, but I heard that it is horrible. Is that true in some instances?
At worst, it can be tricky at the beginning of a campaign, but as with any TW game, it gets easier the longer you get into the campaign.
ETW's campaigns are arguably more complex than any other TW game and there's a bit of a learning curve when you jump from the comparativley simple preocupation of producing an armoured meat grinding empire, as in RTW or MTW2, to building an economic empire that will can support it's own territorial growth.
The current problems (CTDs notwithstanding) are to do with the AI being, for whatever reason, unable to exploit the new features and mechanisms to the same extent as the player can. It can be a bit like playing Tennis against a child, or playing chess with someone who only know how to play draughts (checkers).
It's still fun though, especially when you are discoveringt he new aspects of the game. Any disapointment comes after, once you've absorbed them into your play-style.
That's my opinion anyway! :)
That's about what I would say as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
With the caveat that if CA start to tweak the AI to a level which is even basically proficient, most of us will have our hands very very full.
The scope of the game means it could rapidly get too hard for many people if CA manage to pull that off.
ETW is FAR from horrible. It's the best TW game in the series. It doesn't have the atmosphere of STW (nothing has match that game in that regard), but has the best graphics, tools, tooltips, etc. in the series. It also includes lots of new features and insight into the inner workings that any previous TW game.
I find it quite fun and regularly spend at least a couple hours a day playing.
On strategy difficulty, I said medium. The way I read your question, you didn't ask about game difficulty (because that can change based on your settings) but rather how difficult it can be to make long-term (strategic) decisions. I find I am often weighing the pros and cons of something that's good in the short term but not so good in the long term (like high tax rates that bring in more money now but retard asset value and population growth, and thus tax revenue, over the long run) vs. things that are sacrifices in the short term but beneficial over the long run.
I'd say it's harder than Age of Empires and Civilization strategically, but easier than Europa Universalis.
IMO the campaign is too easy, even on VH. Definitely not something a couple common sense fixes to AI behavior can't fix though. In fact I saw a good number of them being worked on already for the next patch. I think after the next patch the game will be 90% ready. Really looking forward to that.
I voted for medium as well.
Ironically, I've found that playing the game on a harder difficulty is easier, thanks to the improved economy (for trading nations, which most are). And I agree with all the above - if the AI could play the game properly, it would be a good challenge.
In the mean time, I've stopped ETW, and started EU:Rome until the next patch comes out.
IMO its the best tw game out there. its jst the right difficulty, and battles can be a real bitch if you don't have a big advantage.
the hardest part? probably techs, naval, and balancing economy. the economy post-patch 1.2 is hard to keep up due to high upkeep costs, and the naval aspects of the game are extremely difficult with non-naval factions like Russi, the Marathas, Austria and Prussia.
easiest part? probably the fact that the enemy never sends a serious invasion force into your lands. though ive started to have this happen more, they are mostly just single units of militia or groups of weak units/cavalry.
I would say that strategically it is about medium. But I may view strategy differently than you do.
There are aspects of the game that are difficult and some that are easy.
Managing the economy is likely the hardest part as there are so many penalties and some twists and turns to learn.
The AI does not do a good job at this and so the game suffers at the moment. It is too broke to build troops but it is very prone to declaring war. It was not this way before the last patch and it may not be after the next one.
Each time they have made changes it has changed the game a lot. I don’t know what the next change will bring, but I am hopeful.
.............you do know all a.i. factions are loooooooaaaaaaadddddeeeeeeddddddddd...............and they dont build troops for the simple reason they are stuuuuuuuuupppppppiiiiiiiiiiddddddddQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
So why is their rating always feeble and destitute?Quote:
Originally Posted by John-117
I was Terrifying and Spectacular and only bringing in 2500 a turn…after expenses…
for some reason, i think they just take historical ratings or something? in my experience, GB France and Ottomans have always been terrifying and spectacular, but just about every other country is feeble and destitute. i dont know why they have those in SP; the a.i. is given such huge bonuses its not even funny.
Well, I guess I worded my question wrong ,but I meant that I was wondering how hard it is to switch from battle field tactics of ancient times to modern era gun fighting. I play EB, and was was wondering if it was a huge learning curve. But Thanks for your input.
The battles would be tactics but it is some change. Nothing you can’t handle I am sure. There are some decent tutorials that will work you up to being able to handle the unit. From there it is up to you.
Cannon can make a big difference if handled well and not much difference if they are not. The advanced ammo is best and you have to research subjects to upgrade…so that is a big change.
ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh...................................you should re-word that........
anyway,
not an enormous learning curve; in fact i was playing EB right before going to empire as well!(go saba!)
battlefield tactics; well, thats a little hard to talk about. when you think about it though, the tactic in empire are like every other tw game, except now you just wear down the enemy until you close in for melee.
unfortunately the a.i. likes to send in its line infantry and waste them on melee. stupid a.i.
but believe it or not, ive been outflanked by tha a.i. before! not anything i couldnt take care of because i had more proffesional troops and a huge quantity, but still!
Okay, so you're actually asking about the tactical battles? I think everyone else was assuming it was the strategic level (the campaign map).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghaust the Moor
I just got the game, waiting for a few patch cycles (apparently not enough patch cycles). From my early impressions, I think the switch from RTW or M2TW isn't very difficult. You'll still engage the enemy at fairly short range, due to the limits of muskets of that period.
If anything, it's a little easier (IMO) because ranged units and melee units are combined in one "line infantry" type that does both. So you've got your main infantry battle line, maybe a few skirmishers, artillery (similar to RTW and M2TW but with longer range), cavalry for the flanks and to chase down runners, and the general. The basics are the same. The line infantry units don't seem to need as much baby-sitting as the earlier games (or maybe it's just that there aren't additional ranged units like archers to manage), so I have more time to micro-manage the cavalry units. I do like that aspect of the game.
Unfortunately, the enemy battle AI still has the same problem it's had ever since RTW -- it doesn't act like a single coherent army, usually arriving on the battlefield already broken up in independent units that act on their own. You can tell there's some kind of "AI general" in charge, because it will look for opportunities to flank, or go after your artillery. But it seldom maintains infantry in any kind of cohesive, single battle line. It can still be fun, but the AI operates at such a disadvantage in army cohesion, that I usually use house rules; fighting at a disadvantage in numbers, if I really want a challenge.
There is the new naval battle engine, which you'll either love or hate, based on reactions here. For me, it's a silly arcade game. It has very little relation to how the tactics of combat under sail in this period were totally determined by wind direction. With no meaningful restriction in angle of movement, the ships drive around like bumper cars and the combat is chaotic (unless you're sailing an overpowered flotilla and can cripple the enemy in one pass). I just auto-resolve all naval battles so I don't have to watch the mess. The auto-resolve seems fair... no unreasonable penalties, and you can still capture enemy ships. You may like the naval battles better than I do, if you're not into realistic sailing mechanics. At least the eye candy is nice.
On the campaign map, stragey side of the game... I'd just echo what the others have said here. It's more challenging than earlier games only because there's more to manage. Once you get your head around the economy, the trade mechanics and tech tree, it won't feel any harder.... except for having a few more things to juggle on each turn. What's frustrating is the inane campaign AI, which doesn't behave in any logical or consistent way for diplomacy and war. Hopefully this is being worked on for the next patch. If not, the game probably won't stay long on my hard drive. The potential is there, but it really needs better diplomatic/strategic AI.
Haven't rated it as the games simply not finished yet, waiting till they close the patching to determine whether its too easy.
Main gripe with the game as it stands is predictability. From a few other threads I've had one place surrender, I was playing the same faction, & it was the same city as the other poster. Largest fleet battle, same faction same location as the other poster. Fleet invasion, same faction invading, same location & with the same force, I think that was shared with at least two other posters.
This is not what I was expecting based on the other TW games where each game felt different. As an simple example, knowing that bordering a faction is 98% likely to result in a declaration of war results in game play become increasingly predictable.
Finally, (and fingers crossed many of these items will be fixed in the upcoming patches), troop types, well they're are pretty much all the same, so playing one faction or another simply results in having a differently skinned clone of every other factions troops. There is slight variation but not nearly enough yet, and the main troop variations not appearing until the very end of the game is simply frustrating.
Once again, the update news does seem to indicate that many of these items will be improved/fixed, & as others have said here, if they get the AI right this could be a very challenging game.
At the moment its easy, both strategically and tactically. However, as prodigal said, the game simply isnt finished yet. i'm Hopeful that the next patch will improve things significantly, and optimistic that CA will continue to tweak the AI after that.