Printable View
As posted by IGN on August 19th, 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Revolution: S:TWQuote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Evolution: M:TW
Revolution: R:TW
Evolution: M2:TW
Revolution: E:TW
Evolution: N:TW
Re reading through it:
One wonders if this is still correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by IGN
Thanks pevergreen.
:bow:
Hello,Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
No. NTW is not the "evolution", of ETW it is the "expansion". The difference is that it has been sold as a stand alone this time around. This is because CA do not want to put off potential customers that did/do not want to buy ETW.
The "evolution" title is yet to come (though of course it may be marketed as the "revolution").
Yohei
Lets hope the next is an evolution rather than a revolution.
I think they need something stable, playable, and solid from release rather than something ambitious, innovative, and broken.
:laugh4:
It'll either be a WWI or RTW2 - but i'd bet on the WWI scenario. There is no reason why to throw away the expertise on gunpowder, cannons, hiding in buildings etc All these features point towards that way. If so, it would be certainly an evolution over ETW/NTW.
All of the polls go for Rome 2 of course.
I hope it is not WWI
I would be much happier with a Victorian or Colonial Period TW.
I know WWI is popular with a lot of people but the tactics and technologies of the period just leave me cold.
Throwing mass waves of men in suicide charges just doesn’t inspire me. Nor is sitting static until the tank is invented.
Oh and lest we forget, poison gas...a waist of time for the most part. Wouldn’t you love the models of gasmasks for horses and dogs?
I know of no way you could use infiltration tactics in a total war game. Which would defeat the point of the era.
I am sure loads of people just want to see airplanes and submarines.
I don’t see a good way to pull it off.
I could be wrong of course, but it could also be a goof that would dwarf what happened with ETW and I don’t know if they really want to risk something like that before they have another success.
Possibly who knows. NTW is the most evolved expansion I can remember in total war. It also seemed cheaper than Empire when I got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I hope they don't make a Rome 2, I did not get on too wall with Rome but the main reasion is a lot of people like Rome because of how it is or they like a mod on it but a Rome 2 would not be Rome it would be different in some way and I doubt it would be BI or something so I expect people would be disappointed, also we look back with rose tinted glasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
But I don't think total war should to go WW1 or WW2 may be a game going from 1900 to 1950 but I don't think one can realy look at WW2 with out looking at WW1 as I think both conflicts are related. There are how ever there are a lot of World War games Total War should probably go else were for the next game. I would like to see something in the east.
In my view both are inevitable.
Jack Lusted hinted that the work on artillery for ETW/NTW will be used further and judging from the polls for the next TW that CA gave out sometime during teh latest stages of ETW WW1 will be the choice and not the Victorian or Colonial periods.
As for R2, it is such a strong period in terms of fanbase and the precedent that CA has with it, that from a marketing perspective it is simply too good an option to discard. I am very firmly convinced that CA will do sooner or later R2.
:bow:
Right, because the quote in my post is not from a proper preview of the game, and Kieran is definately not directly quoted saying this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yohei
I dont see how it can be clearer than that.Quote:
"The way that Total War development works is we do a kind of evolution-revolution cycle. We create revolutionary technology for one title - in this case Empire, which had a brand new engine written from the ground up - and all new AI. Then, for the next game, we take that technology and evolve it - in this case with Napoleon. We've taken everything we've achieved with Empire and Empire's engine and just pushed it to the limit. Napoleon is essentially the culmination of what we wanted to do with Empire, given the time to take it further."
I personally don't believe what Kieran says (in general not just this), and also i avoid reading his posts and interviews, listening to his interviews,presentations etc in video or otherwise.
Probably you can, we judt don't have access yet...Quote:
Indeed, the game will mix and match different body parts to make soldiers look individual and unique, with 64 different faces on offer even on the very lowest settings.
It's called marketing young man, marketing...Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Yohei
This. The things that made WWI unique (at the time) as a war: millions of men armies, continuous front, large scale trench warefare, static lines, planes, tanks, infiltration tactics just do not translate well into a TW engine. RTW2 or some sort of Victorian-Era game would be a much, much, better use of the engine than WWI. I have a feeling that a TW:WWI would be a horrible disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Atleast the AI would be pretty good as all it would do is throw a million doods in a single direction.
An interesting feature would be the ability to use airplanes to survery battlefields and then having to preset your massive pre-attack artillery barrages before you actually initiate the assaults.
I think American Civil War would come before any kind os 20th century game, especially since it would play to the somewhat Avalon Hill-ish precendent (though I think Napoleon in Russia came after Gettysburg, I didn't really play much Avalon Hill...)
I doubt I'd buy a purely WWI TW, I'd buy Rome 2 in a heartbeat.
Biased review or not
the technical arguments he makes are valid
the screenshots are damning!!!
case closed - if Darth (aka the man who saved ETW) says it suxs ... then it SUXORZ
and the fact he used his review as a platform against the anti-modding stance of CA - good on him
was tempted to buy by the napoleon statue.. but more etw rage.. no
I wont be hanging around to dis people that do buy the game and want to rave
but Darth nailed it... so dont go acting like he's so blinded by rage he cant see... sadly it is all crystal clear
this was the review Ive been waiting to read so thanks for posting it
edit: for my part the lack of any discernable battlefield tactics is the real dropped ball here, I always understood that this was what defined the warfare of that era, Napoleons columns comes to mind - it appears they havent even attempted to include this - so its ETW scripted campaigns with napoleon in name only - whatever *shakes head*
Column gets surrounded and shot to pieces or blown to hell with explosive shells.
...or should push through a firing line. Lord Yunson has a point, ETW makes incomplete use of the 3 infantry formations of the age -beyond the line and square, the column was used (afaik) by infantry to break through a defensive line.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
Setting a column up in ETW is tedious micro-managing and I've not noticed any actual advantage to it (e.g. as a square formation gets bonuses to fighting cav) beyond faster unit turning speed and the simple fact of having more men in a concentrated area. I'm guessing NTW is no different...
I've watched many mp battles in ETW, and in none columns are useful - basically its far better to charge line infantry at the same depth they fire. A column button could prove useful, but at the same time fire lethality and fire rate would need to be calibrated. Despite what was promised pre-release the game isn't historically accurate in its gameplay; its just what the tw engine could do all along with more advanced artillery options.
this is also the 'critical' review i was looking to read. maybe it will go on sale shortly? ;)
they will probably never redo shogun eh? i've had enough of muskets and cannons.
I have found that the AI deployed my forces in an attack columns several times in ETW and I have had them used against me...but always at the wrong time.:dizzy2:
I still say the one button they need most is in the naval battles. A formation “Turn About” to reverse the formation rather than sail from Jakarta to Cape Horne making a turn with the whole line.:inquisitive:
:laugh4:
Against a human player with artillery being actually good now. It would be hard to get an AI that would be able to use it effectively without dying horribly. Even the British figured out how to counter them by the end of the period.
Probably not, i'm afraid.Quote:
Originally posted by t1master
they will probably never redo shogun eh?
Afer reading Darth's review I have to say he makes alot of good points. I'm usually disapointed in games and how the AI works. Most of all I'm let down by the people who created these games with such dumb things such as one turn equals one year, how stupid is that! I wasn't going to purchase NTW but I did even after reading Darth's review, I guess I wanted to see for myself. I like the new time having turns by month. I'm not a Modder or a programmer but I've been playing games for ever. I have all of the TW games. Each one should get better but they do not. I've just started playing the Battles of Napoleon and I'm at Egypt. So far the cannons seem to be fine but game crashes alot. Again the time limit seems to make the game less enjoyable. I just get the Army up to snuff and the game ends. Not much time for tactics. I will continue to play and post comments. But again Darth is correct the AI really needs a big overhaul. It upsets and frustrates me when the AI sends one cannon unit and one cav. unit to attack and army of 12 units or more.
You make some good points also! Darth's review seems to say the cannons are really uneffective. I found the cannons to be awsome especially if you have 3 or more and they have gained battle experiance. I've been able to do some big dammage as should be cannons were a big part of Napoleon's strategy. I would like more time to play the different campaigns of Napoleon too short a time limit for me and I never have liked time limits. I really like this period in history. That's why I broke down and made the purchase. I use to play a Dos based game called Waterloo it took the player through 4 battles leading up to Watterloo and they were not tied together like I thought they should have been (meaning the outcome of one should have affected the other). You also could not build troops you got some reinforcements but that was it. My point is I guess they just do not make perfect games. We all like different things.
The biggest fun part for me is the fact that SIEGES ARE FINALLY WORKING. :)
A dead on hit from a howitzer makes a big hole in a unit and drops their morale by half. Cannons are better than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Royce
Most North Americans and Europeans know at least something of European history.. far fewer know much about Japanese history, making it a tougher sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by t1master
That said, I'd love a Shogun 2 set in 1560 or earlier, when Japan was still broken up onto 48 states like in the Nobunaga's Ambition/Lord of Darkness series.
That said, China hasn't gotten any TW love either.
It was pointed out by Captain Fishpants that Darth may not have had the final version.
I think that his evaluation of artillery and its effectiveness is a confirmation that, indeed he did not.
Remember also that Darth compared NTW with his own mod. While NTW’s behaviors might not be what Darth would want from his mod, that mod also reduced or eliminated a number of game features that CA may not have wanted to compromise.
Besides, BAI behavior could be a mute point for many people who play mostly with drop-in opponents.
I don’t think the game is perfect but I think it is a very good expansion for ETW.
In what way? The BAI being a bit more coherent or the forts themselves not some completely fanciful notion of vauban inspired star-forts?Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky
How can you have Napoleonic infantry without columns?? i take your point about the AI, but that struggles with almost anything bar suicide. In any case, had they developped infantry formations further, they could have had an added interesting scissors/paper/stone type element decisions & tactics -which (if you've watched Sharp) seems to be at the core of basic strategy of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by antisocialmunky