Printable View
BTW - From what I gather from my gameplay, Artillery has a bad tendency to try and shoot UNDER your men if your cannons are on unfavorable land with respect to enemy units and bounce cannon balls into them. Also, cannons don't seem to calculate for cavalry is correctly.
Also, line infantry still have bad tendency to kill cannon crews in front of them. Fortunately light infantry still shoots around your own men.
I totally agree with your comments and while only halfway into the Italian campaign, I do have the game and I'm enjoying it so far. In fact when I first read his review with his opening, totally non-objective critique of the UI, it was hard to continue reading.---or at least take anything else he wrote seriously. Like you also, I thought he spent to much effort in nitpicking at the BAI. We all know it's not great, but so far I'm of the opinion it is improved in NTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratwar
While it's still not perfect, the BAI does seem to give a better account of itself in maintaining a cohesive frontal assault. I'm only playing at the normal battle difficulty, so I have no idea if they perform any better at the higher levels, but I would assume this might be the case.
Like others, I am not a big fan of the structured campaign/mission type of game, but it appears that there is enough diversity of strategic choices to give this portion of the game some re-playability.
I will say that the battlefield visuals are simply fantastic and eclipse Empire--if that is possible. In addition to playing the French campaign, I have also set up and played several "1 X 1" single player battles just to test how the A.I. handles itself. Once again I only played these on the normal difficulty, but I felt that the BAI still managed a more cohesive attack than I've seen at this level in Empire.
I have noted some of the problems that A.I. controlled artillery has with the terrain such as setting correctly. In both a campaign battle and one of the single player battles, I have seen them set up their cannons up in range of my lines, but with a hill between a direct line of fire. Consequently all their shots plowed into the hill and careened over the heads of my troops which gave no support to their assault. Consequently, I held my artillery fire until their troops crested this same hill to do plenty of damage. Thinning the enemy ranks with ranged fire did what it was supposed to do and helped insure a win.
This game does not feel like an expansion to me, but more like a new TW game--only with a narrower scope than its predecessor. And to those complaining about the cost, I can only offer this. In a day and age when one can spend up to $50 US for the latest and greatest FPS that will only give one 7 to 10 hours of game-play----any Total War game, regardless of its scope--is an absolute bargain by comparison.
Cheers
Watched a few mp videos in youtube.
The game looks absolutely stunning, and i think its safe to say that its perhaps the first time that the 3d-men engine starts looking and playing well regardless of the scale used to view it (no more despicable sprites like the ones in RTW/M2). The smoke/fire effects are indeed as good as were promised. The UI seems far better than all recent twrs, and closer to STW than ever, which for me is a good thing. The colour codes (blue for friendly and red for enemy) are fitting, subtle and unobstrusive, far better than the salad/neon green of other 3d-men tw games. It would have seemed that Darth took it a bit more personally regarding the UI than warranted. Uniforms and animations are also very good and the "laser" bullets are few and just to show which unit is fire which from a distance - very useful and totally acceptable to me. Accents fully ok, and the game lacks the overly childish and intrusive in-battle unit audio responses of M2 - its far more like STW/MTW that original languages and accents are employed only for unit response. From a historical perspective aesthetic feel, i have to say that battles seem to fully deliver.
Cavalry (and infantry) indeed seem faster than ETW, but the rate of fire has also increased, and so cavalry cannot trample extended line infantry with frontal charges if the inf. have a shot for quite some time/area. Difficult to say yet full impact of this in the gameplay, however it wasn't completely midlessly introduced apparently, and that can be only a good thing. Considering that battles, in mp at least, take place over very broad fronts mostly, perhaps it was warranted.
The game comes with an array of interesting mp maps, that were in very short supply in ETW - better late than never.
MP feature works fine it seems, as well as the drop-in feature in campaigns. In my opinion the mp campaign is very cleverly implemented (more than two players it would have been very unpractical, playing all the battles of the opponent sounds really great), and i'm sure that lots of enjoyment can come out of it.
All in all, and despite my resolve to stick with my decision and not to buy, NTW seems to be worth it and it also seems to fulfill some of the potential of ETW that went unfulfilled, especially if one is determined to play in mp mostly (no idea about the AI, it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't really good).
:bow:
Here are 7 videos from Point_Man, who seems to be part of the Gods of TW clan:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ReflexC.../0/9htZdNnOvBQ
They showcase my points above.
Nice commentaries/tactics and play too.
:bow:
One thing I will agree with that Darth review thought.
Is the nostalgia of the STW AI, I have very fond memories of STW, and the quasi-chess like game play, with move and counter move and shock troops that actually delivered one, the flanking mechanics but most importantly the formations holding and not blobbing.
It is odd that the only blobbing that happened in STW was the map with a river and a bridge, where you could rain arrows on them and a substantially smaller force could hold a substantially larger one. yet if these two same forces met in a n open field it was a sure loss.
Oddly enough this blog tactic by the AI I first experienced in RTW. But since it was a melee game it passes, in M2TW too but in ETW it is annoying, so maybe this has something to do with the move to a 3D engine, only CA would know.
Other than that, I do not agree with all the points (UI excelent, Tracers etc are all fine and part of solid gameplay, it is a game first and foremost some people just do not want to acknowledge this) but I can understand the temper, or if you will the style of expression, having Hellenic blood running in my veins as well.
Cheers!
It has nothing to do with nostalgia. In RTW the blobbing penalties units were getting were removed. In STW/MTW the programmer and CA were farsighted enough to give combat penalties to units that blob in order to prevent people from cheating by superstacking units in a small area and create local superiorities that gave unrealistic results in melee. In RTW that was taken out, hence the player blobs and the AI blobs when safe and necessary in melee, and under certain circumstances its best to do so (especially agains the AI that he can't really envelop properly).
The blobbing you see in ETW, is of another kind - the AI used to do it since STW, if you watch how he used guns (especially if he had many). It has to do with the well known inability of teh AI to maintain a cohesive missile line using flat trajectory missiles, like guns and crossbows. In multiplayer all players use missiles like this ever since tw began.
Guns and crossbows give backkills ie bullets/bolts that miss continue travelling till they hit something, the ground, a tree or another man that the guy was aiming for. This means that concentrated formations suffer heavily from fire, as even bullets that miss, find their targets. The AI not really being able to make up a cohesive, and cohesively firing front was simply not up to the task of a gunpowder era game.
In any case, there is now multiplayer campaign, if i had the game, i would't play a single campaign against the AI, i would get online and in forums and pick up friends and foes to play against.
:bow:
PS Be aware of that "blood" and "temper" because although it has good aspects it has very much more bad ones. Objectiveness and calm are far better than giving in to your temper, and ending up saying things that you might regret.
Perhaps this is the case, yet how many years have passed and how many games later, one would think that this AI behavior would have been corrected and addressed, to some people's eyes there is no excuse no matter how you justify it.
And this is actually something of a "wide" issue in the gaming Industry, I play also many MMORPG games, and over the years game after game it simply seems that no one is working in any pro-active way and repeat some of the mistakes of previous games (their competition none the less), instead of taking care of it and coming ahead.
As for the temper, I said I understood it, I did not say that I was this way myself ;) And while I agree with your practical standpoint on it, sometimes it is just a cultural trait, after all, it maybe what made the Hellenic people act the way they did back when invading forces were at the doorsteps of Europe. Older Cultures have gone through allot and that has fashioned not only their world view but also how some deal with certain issues. it is well known that Mediterranean cultures are more "warm blooded", more argumentative and ready to debate without necessarily always taking care to be "Politically Correct", it may also be the factor which led the Hellenic people to establish Philosophical foundations which were later adopted by other cultures. In its day to day application it results in a tempered expression which is honest and in your face. I understand that it may still poke to the sensibilities of some younger cultures.
All I can say there it is that we simply can't have it all in life when it comes to people, and perfection is just an ideal which we can all strive for, yet knowing that we will never attain perfection nevertheless, it just happens that some cultures know this better than others and this is expressed by a more "laissez-faire" approach to some things in life or by a more tempered posture within their respective societies. But we are getting off topic a bit ;)
So in the end, and since this is debate for a game, and not a question of life and death, maybe what is more important to draw out of it is the message and not the way that the messenger delivered it. because through this criticism, maybe someone will take note and it may indirectly help in improvement in the future, if everyone stands there applauding and remains in a state of conformism, then things stagnate, or even worse, those in aposition to make decision take for granted that it is ok to repeat mistakes as long as the $$$ keep coming in.
Cheers!
I didn't try to excuse the AI behavior Suraknar; in fact i have been a harsh critic of it, and if you read carefully you'll see that i criticise CA for making a gunpowder game with the same engine over and over. The AI was stripped indeed from BI and then built up, but the basics of it are the same, which predictably gives the same troubles.
:bow:
Yes indeed, and a logical conclusion Gollum.
:bow:
I believe this thread needs a follow up: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/napoleon-to...1075020p1.html
TWO STARS from gamespy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by loony
Yeah I'm going to have to agree there.Quote:
This review is completely BS. Firstly, he rated ETW 5/5 last year when it was basically 3/5. NTW has been highly praised by the community with plenty of honest player reviews. This guy has simply missed his check from Creative Assembly this time. This game deserves 5/5 since it is far improved then ETW. It has plenty of multiplayer features (something this review does not even mention) and other features like supply lines which makes the game far more immersive.
Even Darth gave this game 7.5/10, which tells you how much this review fails in comparison. (Darth being one of the most trusted modders for TW games)
Tom Chink, please play the game next time.
I may have said it before but the reviewers are gun-shy after ETW and have unfairly cut the ratings NTW deserved to a point more deserving of ETW.
NTW is the best playing game of the whole series and to give it such a lackluster rating is more than shameful.
They are basing the review on the anger of a lot of people at ETW rather than doing a good job of evaluating NTW.
It has a metascore of 82 or 84 while ETW had a 90? What is with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
This is my view as well.
They all played ETW for maybe 2 days, didn't have time to see the massive amount of bugs, gave it scores usually reserved for Half-Life games, and now they feel like idiots.
The reviews for ETW were unfortunate but it's just horrible to unfairly take that out on NTW in order to score some cool points with the community.
"Hey, look, I get it now, TW games suck!" Except now NTW is actually awesome so they still look like idiots.
Removing personal taste and all that, I seriously can't see how someone could sanely rate NTW 1.0 lower than ETW 1.0. It's just a superior game in nearly every respect; all the units are unique, the map is much more detailed, runs way better, is very stable and non-buggy, many new features, better graphics, etc. I'm not saying people aren't allowed to like ETW more or anything like that but NTW is just a better made product, and that's a fact...in my opinion :laugh4:
I'll point out that the author of the NTW Gamespy review is not the same person who gave ETW five stars for gamespy.
It's Tom Chick, the man who recognized the problems of ETW ( "Instead, once again, Creative Assembly has made a game that its AI cannot play. " ) and give it an appropriately bad rating in this review.
In short, he did play the game.
The glaring discrepancy between Gamespy's ETW review and NTW review should be blamed on their ETW reviewer (Allen Rausch).
CR
Touché. I stand by my post though, as it's the general vibe I get from most of the reviews. There's no logical reason why NTW gets harsher reviews across the board compared to ETW. It might also be due to the game press' tradition of rating expansions lower than the mother game (NTW being an expand-alone), no matter how much better they are. I guess most reviewers give most of their points out for innovation instead of actual fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
CR
your link is not loading.
Never the less, the game is starting on its fourth week after release. Those who have the game seem to love it.
Most of the grumbling comes from those who felt burned over ETW and have not bought NTW.
I have seen no post release reviews in the press or online. From media sources, it is dead quiet.
CA made changes to the game after the initial press version and they must have gotten it right, because the gamers playing the game have very few complaints and they are not screaming for a patch yesterday.
This is not ETW. You can tell it was developed from ETW but it is far and away a much cleaner, smoother experience and the thing is as stable as a brick wall.
The AI is improved but it is never going to match a human player but the drop-in battle option allows most battles to have a human opponent if you want.
For those reasons and others I am forgetting player are baffled by the lack of solid reviews and the poor scores given it by the media.
If you played it you would understand....and I don’t mean the demo.
:laugh4:
Most likely ETW was meant to be reviewed well. You know and i know that CA's and SEGA's new engine attempt wouldn't go without the necessary promo back up. You need to oil the wheel for it to turn if you get my point.
Also in general reviewers skewer games of lesser scope and micromanagement and more focus, lesser layer complexity and more deep strategy like smaller more concentrated campaigns in expansions, which is of course wrong. There are plenty of games that were top notch in terms of strategy, tactics and AI including STW and MTW, but many reviewers complained: "Mediocre campaign layer" for STW - read not enough toy micromanagement tasks, "aging graphics engine" in MTW - read graphics are more valued than gameplay etc etc.
Most of the criticisms in the current review are true but they should have been expressed for ETW where they were 100 fold more pronounced, not to mention in M2 and RTW that started the commercial spiral of CA. I didn't see any reviewer being allowed to write anything against that trend then, and it is the very same trend being criticised now. They were all awe taken by the 3D engine and were giving out almost 99% scores. These same criticisms about the AI are expressed in the tw community at large from 2004 automn on. Its really old news.
NTW is definitely not what tw was, nor could it ever be, given what the fanbase and CA's commercial goals are. It seems to be however a definite improvement in terms of delivery, concept and depth over ETW. Most of Darth's points are with the AI (understandable) and the aesthetics (half understandable). I think there wasn't a single TW fan that was expecting the AI of NTW to play how multiplayers play in ranged warfare battles. That's what the drop-in feature and mp campaign are for though. Seriously for all of you you have not had an mp experience before, just get online and play - there is a whole new world that you are missing - a world that makes TW far far more interesting and deep than the overmicromanagement ladden SP game. I promised myself after the dishonest hype for ETW and the mess that it was that i'm not buying NTW, and i stick by my word. However it is clear objectively to me that NTW is far better than ETW and it has many features that can make up for worthwhile modding and interesting mp play.
:bow:
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?
As has already been alluded to, "official" reviews by sites such as the one in question are utterly unreliable though, and personally I take no notice whatsoever of them when making a buying decision. This review (and reviewer) does seem much more realistic (and familiar) than the original (5/5) ETW gamespot review though. I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?
The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.
:bow:
Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.Quote:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?
I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.
Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)Quote:
I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?
Bingo.Quote:
The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.
:bow:
Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.Quote:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?
I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.
Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)Quote:
I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?
BingoQuote:
The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.
:bow:
Apologies for the double post (it came about by accident). Please delete the second post and this one here.
Thanks :bow: