Re: The "Why Napoleon?" Blog, by Mike Simpson
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Madoushi
Well, Empire taxes my PC to the limit, so picking up Napoleon probably wouldn't be a hot idea.
Also, Napoleon seems a more focussed, constrained game than the wide-open Empire, which is somewhat less appealing to me
Personally, I'd like a Rome II, though I know it's not going to happen.
Surprisingly NTW seems less demanding on your hardware than ETW was.
It is much richer in eye candy and detail then ETW but they seem to have done a good job of optimizing it.
The BAI is improved. Don't fight your battles like you did in ETW, it will surprise you.
One battle the Enemy went on line outside musket range like normal but then concentrated suddenly on the right flank. When it saw that reserves were rushed there at the expense of other parts of the line it used a cavalry charge on the weakened left flank an its reserve units to envelope.
It can keep you on your toes.
It does have the trade spots but it is not world wide as ETW was. The game mechanics are where ETW should have been. Then we wouldn’t be harping about missed potential.
As to Rome 2...I would lay odds it will move in that direction.
Re: The "Why Napoleon?" Blog, by Mike Simpson
m
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
Surprisingly NTW seems less demanding on your hardware than ETW was.
Heh. I had someone try to tell me on another forum that otimization is a myth, and that if my comp couldn't run Empire maxed, it was a POS.
I didn't know if he was trolling or had just never played a Source Engine game. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
It is much richer in eye candy and detail then ETW but they seem to have done a good job of optimizing it.
I've been running Empire on minimum settings, albiet at 1200 x Something resolution (same as my desktop). Like that, it runs fairly smoothly, even in large battles in the rain, but the opening cinema just chugs along.
I'm planning to upgrage my Athlon X2 to a Phenom X4 and my Radeon HD 4250 for an HD 5000 series next month, so running it shouldn't even be an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fisherking
The BAI is improved. Don't fight your battles like you did in ETW, it will surprise you.
One battle the Enemy went on line outside musket range like normal but then concentrated suddenly on the right flank. When it saw that reserves were rushed there at the expense of other parts of the line it used a cavalry charge on the weakened left flank an its reserve units to envelope.
It can keep you on your toes.
It does have the trade spots but it is not world wide as ETW was. The game mechanics are where ETW should have been. Then we wouldn’t be harping about missed potential.
As to Rome 2...I would lay odds it will move in that direction.
Tactics? In Empire? My tactic is Stacks Full of Line Infantry or Cost Effective Substitutes. I form the longest, thinnest line I possibly can, march toward the enemy, entice them hopefully to attack, and open fire while enveloping. Oh, I try to keep a unit or two of cavalry around to support the General's Bodyguard, and cannon for sieges of course. It seems reckless, but steady volleys of fire block melee charges, and if you can cut down their melee units before engaging the body of their force, it's usually guns vs guns, and you will have more.
As for missed potential, you mean the AI? The tactical AI does seem a bit of a throwback.. I recall having a much tougher time in some battles in Rome and MII, though in any TW game, I rarely fight when outnumbered unless the quality of my troops is much higher, or I have a scheme.
Well, you've piqued my interest. I hope you are satisfied. :)
Re: The "Why Napoleon?" Blog, by Mike Simpson
Quote:
Originally posted by Jerome Grasdyke
The games may not have lived up to everyone's expectations, but each installment in the TW series has its own character and charm, and none of them are dreadful by any stretch of the imagination,...
The same old party line...even now that you are out of there...
This is not just a matter of how much certain people were expecting. Its primarily a matter of where the series went direction wise. But not a single one of you - of course - came out to discuss this ever. The mark Mike Simpson left in total war is the mark of explicit commerciality. Not exactly something to be proud of if you ask me.
As for the for "old time's sake" for many it has passed way beyond that for ages now. TW just isn't really worth it; recent releases, were one fiasco after the next.
Re: The "Why Napoleon?" Blog, by Mike Simpson
I had ETW turned down to low or medium on all settings too but I have been running NTW on the auto settings, and they were all high.
There seems to be about a two second delay when you hit pause or esc keys but outside that, it all seems fine.
So far in NTW I have fought every battle outnumbered, except for a naval battle where I massively overpowered the enemy. That was my worst battle to date! I lost an 80 gun SOL and had a 90 gun route and that was against a 74 and a bunch of Indiamen. I think I need to look at the new stats.:embarassed:
Cannon seem a lot better in NTW too. Most all of the stats are different and it takes some relearning.
It is a good game. I would like it to have had more scope, but then I would have had more lands in ETW too...:laugh4:
Re: The "Why Napoleon?" Blog, by Mike Simpson
Well that's certainly encouraging. Maybe I can downsize that next upgrade and just get a new card or CPU. :)
Also, grats on your acts of valour.
Augh, I don't want to tie up my connection getting this off Steam.. maybe I'll pick up the box tomorrow when I go preorder Bad Company 2.
*watches his money fly away on little wings
