Happy with the decision made?

I'm cautiously optimistic, given that they hired Lusted, that CA may be humble enough to build on the fine work done by the Lordz on NTW I and II. I'm deeply leery of the naval combat, though. Ancient, oared combat would have been a much simpler hurdle to jump for both players and AI. It's not trivial to teach humans to sail, never mind properly fight a sailing ship, and CA's AI track record makes me skeptical that they'll be able to get a tactical naval AI that can handle winds and crossing the T. If they don't, why bother with the Age of Sail? Even if they do, it'll pwn almost every player for months until they come up the learning curve on frigate tactics. Why set yourselves up for failure like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pode

It's not trivial to teach humans to sail, never mind properly fight a sailing ship, and CA's AI track record makes me skeptical that they'll be able to get a tactical naval AI that can handle winds and crossing the T. If they don't, why bother with the Age of Sail? Even if they do, it'll pwn almost every player for months until they come up the learning curve on frigate tactics. Why set yourselves up for failure like this?

---

Yep, this is the aspect that's the most intriguing to me. We've all been (well, most of us have been) asking for real tactical naval combat, and it's great that they're attempting it, but how's it going to play out? They're jumping right into the MOST complicated naval combat style with sailing, as you point out. Earlier oar-based ships, or later internal combustion tactics are a lot more direct and easier to understand.

It doesn't have to be too complicated. If each ship has an AI captain and the player doesn't have to micromanage the actual sailing, then all the player needs... even someone new to sail tactics... is a clear indication of how far the ship (or a fleet, in formation) can point upwind; a clear indication of where the "invalid directions" are on the compass.

This could be done on the tactical mini-map as a pie-shaped zone ahead of the ship where you can't go, when a single ship or a fleet is selected... something like that. The fleet selected as a whole would be more restricted in maneuverability than some selected single ships, because some of the smaller designs can point further up into the wind than the big square-rigged ships of the line. By contrast, if you're in the wrong tactical position... dead downwind from a ship of the line in a smaller and more maneuverable but slower ship (compared to a square rigger running downwind), and with fewer cannon, then you're hosed. You can't do a tactical retreat upwind in a smaller vessel.

If the information is clearly shown, along with info about broadside firepower vs. bow and stern chaser cannon, then a beginner could get the basic tactical ideas fairly easily. This could be really exciting and interesting, if they do it right.

Hopefully, they're also modeling things like the way you can tack faster (change direction across the wind) when running downwind, vs. heading upwind where the ship has to use momentum to pull the bow across the wind. But again, if the AI captain can handle this, then all the player has to know is that the ship turns faster running downwind than trying to cut across the wind. I'm hoping the game is this fine-grained in sail tactics, but I guess we'll see.

Can't say I'm overly enthusiastic.:balloon2: :wall:

Nostalgia forbids me to like any new releases except STW2. ~;)

Too early to say. Will there be too much emphasis on graphics at the expense of gameplay, like in Rome?

Not my favourite era, I prefer the ancient world. Can I suggest an Ancients mod already? Think galleys, ramming, greek fire, all those sail designs you could have :laugh4:

If they make it what I wrote in thw wishlist thread, it'll be a great game!

If they don't make it like I said it, I'm convinced it will not be very fun :grin:

Not happy at all. Don't like this era.
But I'm will be very surprised if in ETW will be no bugs, so 6th TW (which I guess is ROME) should be less "buggy" and more advanced.

Best yet!

A new engine will be a good thing for TW. As stated in the interview, military and diplomacy were apart, so they would conflict.

Diplomacy was so broken in previous total war games that I never even bothered to use it. Unlike in, say, the Civilization games, where there's tangible benefits.

Improved diplomacy will help prevent early blitz from being the only tactic.

To be honest, I am happier they are going elsewhere this time, because I would hate to see the TW series just turn into revolutionary sequel after sequel.

I for one am glad they are going for this era. It should freshen up the series, and attract a bigger fan base.
The scope available from this time period is massive. I just hope they concentrate on getting the engine and diplomacy right, and not just focusing on the graphics and eye candy.
Assuming they get it right the game is going to :thrasher:

Yea I love the idea, muskets, cavalry, and cannons, something I always tried to play with in M2, now it's realized.

I hope like in Patriot, the music is played by actual drummers, and flute players, as you fade out the battlefield you can't hear the music or just barely, makes it more interesting when your hiding cavalry far away in the forests.

Naval battles and new graphics is what we were all expecting with the new Total War... I could go on...

I love it. I think people underestimate the depth of strategy in this era. If CA does this right, it should be great. I can't wait. I hope, however, that certain things are dramatically improved upon. It would be nice to at least see some implementation of the economic warfare (Continental System), even if not incredibly detailed. Also, diplomacy and AI, of course. Diplomacy, for one, should actually have some meaning. At any rate, I remain cautiously optimistic.

I am really looking forward to bayonet charges...
And ships of the line duking it out on the high seas...and frigates...
This has the potential to be great. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Looking forward to it. It keeps CA working hard at revolutionising the series, and I love the period. I find it a shame there seem to be so many misunderstandings about the warfare of the time: things like worrying about boring tactics, one volley killing entire lines, it not being a time of bravery and great leaders... folks, it's that much and more, and I'm excited that there is finally a chance of a good game to do it justice. And if not, I'm sure mods can do an awful lot with the new engine (American Revolution anyone?!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist

Here we go...

I don't doubt (in fact I know) that the "barbarians" were not idiots and did use formations etc... However, it would have been large bodies of men moving forwards, not discrete units moving around in formation from one end of the battle field to another. They never achieved that kind of flexibility on a consistent basis, precisely because their society was more fractured. Which isn't a negative reflection on them, just a fact of their differences. They never centralised their power structures to the point were they could impose standard training, drills, logistics, uniforms, weaponry, etc... These are all things the TW battle format needs and fits better to the period in question. It wasn't able to comfortably represent the diversity of the barbarian faction in my eyes is all.

---

We love to go a wandering, a wandering we do!!! Wanderlust!!

Yes, they didn't have as small nor as many units as the Romans, but they did have units and smaller Gallic village units trained at their villages as a small unit but when war occurred they were grouped together in larger masses that were less manueverable than the Roman unit formations, but they could manuever, just not in as disciplined and flexible manner as the Romans. Gallic culture and craftsmanship, particularily metal working where they actually could suprass the Romans, government, etc. was also very advanced.

So, naval battles with Gallic Venettii warships and Assyrian, Phoenecian, Roman and Greek etc. galleys and later Cogs and Dromons and Dhows etc.all the way from 500BC to 1500AD would be very nice to incorporate into a tactical game engine. :laugh4: I'm sure Asterix would also appreciate this.

Makes sense to me, since STW, MTW, and RTW series exist it would be easy to make a tactical naval combat add-on for any of these games.

For Gunpowder Era from 1500 through about 1870 would be nice.

Who knows, I might buy it if I can sail on the Great Lakes and bother the British in Canada around 1812 or so, and also some Candians as an afterthought of course, but why oh why not extend ETW to at least the end of the ACW in 1865?? :wall:

So it adds 1 more GB to the game, so what. Phooey and phrrrrttt.

Chris

As much as I'd like to see Rome 2, the gunpowder-oriented 1700s are a good choice and should change the battles dramatically. Adding naval combat is a nice sweetner to the game as well. On the con side, i think many fans (myself included) will miss sending in melee infantry and watching them hack apart eachother with swords. But we have 4 other TW games for that.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

On the con side, i think many fans (myself included) will miss sending in melee infantry and watching them hack apart eachother with swords. But we have 4 other TW games for that.:yes:

---

QFT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

After all the fuss that was made about M2TW and what we actually got, why would anyone be expecting much from this idea? M2TW is still not fixed.

.......Orda

---

I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.

That being said, I think we're all expecting so much from this idea because a lot of us consider M2 to be an improvement over Rome and Barbarian Invasion. Those people, myself included, are hopeful that line of improvement will continue, and manifest itself in ETW and the mods and games after that.

:balloon2:

Although I would rather have RTW2 but any TW game with navel bttles is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dutch_guy

I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.

---

Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

I voted for "no" cause I would have preferred a game in the ancient times. But E:TW has nevertheless great potential. Firstly: the battlefield mechanisms of TW fits perfectly with the very tactically 18th c. warfare. But in the end success depends on the details.

The fighting mechanisms must be correct. I have some concerns but hope the best. A few examples: Will cavalry make the same unrealistic ram-like attacks through the lines as in the other TW games? Will the cavalry sometimes stop because of fear of fire? Will units be beaten and flee by certain charges although only a small part of soldiers is actually killed? Will infantry sometimes (or often) break before contact when attacked with a bajonet charge, as in reality? Or will there be inevitably hand to hand fighting? Will attacks sometimes falter with only one decisive salvo from the near (so you have to decide when to fire)? And so on. Moral should be the most important thing. A deep analysis of black powder warfare is a necessity for the devs.

Naval warfare sounds exiting. The feature I'm most interested in. I hope they will do it right. Battling with sailing ships is no magical affair but again a lot of mistakes could be made. I hope both for frigate warfare and man o war battles.

Another point is siege warfare and the use of villages and buildings in battle. It should f.e. be possible to fire from cover. Field fortifications and trenches in sieges should be used. Certain harbour cities should be conquered by starvation only if a blockade of the sea is done the same time. ...

And diplomacy was very important in the timeframe and finally must work in the game.

Another new TW game... I still haven't bought the last one...

You can also bet on it that some people will have their pallet load of Osprey books at the ready to use as hard historical evidence of musket diameters or the type of fabric used in the voluminous pantaloons of the era... I can hardly contain my anticipation.

:drama3:

The Ospreyettes and WFP (Wargaming Fashion Police)!!! Terrifying!!!

Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zenicetus

Nope, the word on the street is that the 1.3 patch released with Kingdoms will only bring M2TW in sync for multiplayer. There will be no rebalancing or bug fixes for the original M2TW game. The info is in the last few pages of this thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=89698

Regardless, I'm still looking forward to seeing what CA does with this new game, since they're going to a completely new design. Doesn't mean I'll buy it right away, given their history with RTW and M2TW. I really need to stop doing that, and wait for user feedback and a few patch cycles if necessary.

---

Lusted, a modder who now works for CA, has already released his own unofficial unit rebalancing patch over on the Total War Center as that thread states.

Games cost, at the most, 30 pounds for the PC and to be honest, Total Wars are worth the price FAR more then the usual "top of the charts" PC Games that are out.

What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Will infantry sometimes (or often) break before contact when attacked with a bajonet charge, as in reality? Or will there be inevitably hand to hand fighting?

---

Giving the frighten_foot attribute to all infantry would make it more likely to happen. The soldiers often endured horrible punishment from distance but were likely to break without even crossing the bayonets when receiving a charge or forced make a charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi

What I look forward to is the "Boycott Empire!!!!!!!" threads that will pop up :laugh4:

---

I'm particularly looking forward to the "Empire No 2 was vitally important during that period and their troops were eliter than yours and if they hadn't lost the war against Empire No 1 then we can safely say that they would have won the war against Empire No 1 so they really, really, really need to be in the game and if they're not then it's because CA is crap <insert quotes and images followed by accounts of where Empire No 2 almost won battle a or won battle b... but sort of didn't><insert insults><insert moderator edits>" threads.

I'm happy with the decision. I never got M2:TW, partially because when i was playing the demo it gave me too much of a deja vu feeling.

However, I mainly didn't buy M2:TW since it didn't seem to promise massive AI improvements, neither on the battlefield nor on the strategic map. I could enjoy the game with not-quite-up-to-medieval-level battles, but decent strategic AI for a game like this is essential.

I think the concept has potential, but CA will have to sell the game to me on more than just concept. Tons of TBS games have pretty good to great AI, and are often more complex than a TW game, so CA better work on that department.

Also, I want the battles to look good from a distance, I don't really care for what they look like zoomed in since i'll rarely use that mode.

Good point about the sprites - the ones in RTW were bad enough, but the distance filter that distinguished half decent sprites from blurry mess was another visual fiasco of M2TW.

Also worth mentioning is the extreme simplicity of gemeplay depth of TW in the campaign that essentially is the STW unify/conquer all, formula reapplied over and over in periods and situations were it does not really belong without any true addition in strategic depth. For instance country/kingdom logistics and campaign logistics remain mostly out of TW although in most cases they dictated conquest potential, military technology and approach as well as external politics. Some mechanics like the recruiting pools were inserted in M2TW that have potential to represent such things.

Experience suggests that the most advertised new TW features are the ones that offer a wow of 20 minutes and become the unsolved gameplay spoiler for ever and ever after that. The "sieges and artillery" in MTW, the "3D men and horse jumps" in RTW, and the "battle animations & finishing moves" in M2TW.
Half baked features that appeal to the eye and become gameplay killers since they pay little respect to the ways of the AI or to gameplay or to what the engine can support reliably from a gameplay perspective.

Naval and land battles will be a whole new world in this period that will need to be balanced gameplay wise and possibly not in the same way on top of develloping a new engine..

Anyway, by the time people will be bored with it they'll probably announce a newer, flashier and even more euphemeral game that will also be a "brilliant" idea to make, i guess.

I'm happy with the decision made. Although if i'd had it my way, i would have selected 1900 - 1945 as the new time period. I personally believe that there is a chance for good gameplay there, regardless of what some of you think of the period.

I'm glad that overall people seem to like the choice of setting :) We thought that it was time to break some new ground with the series, and since we were re-architecting the engine for the new hardware generation it was a good opportunity to do something a bit different. The early gunpowder era opens a lot of doors, and for naval battles too, the 1700's is *the* time and the perfect way to introduce the new game segment. It gives us some great material to draw inspiration from... expect to see Patrick O'Brian and Hornblower references aplenty.

On the gameplay side, I should mention that we're not approaching this as a missile-only battle game, as some people seem to be fearing. Charges and melee were still an important part of infantry fighting in this period, and a good balance between gunpowder, missile and melee is where we want to be - especially since some of the non-European factions lag behind a bit in terms of technology. The cavalry charge won't be the dominant factor anymore, but it will still be significant if used properly.

As far as the battle AI is concerned, we started from the best of the previous AI's available at the time development began (which was the RTW:BI one, for those who are interested), and have rebuilt it in the new codebase while adding several key new features such as goal-based planning and improved time awareness - for the first time in the TW series the battle AI will be projecting your unit's positions forward in time and evaluating your possible strategies at a high level in realtime, somewhat akin to what a chess program does, which will make it a lot better at understanding what the player is trying to do and making countermoves in time. We're still in full flow in the development, but it's starting to show some good promise.

It's always fun to lift the covers a little from what we've been working on, and hopefully that puts a few fears to rest.

I think this is the right direction. There will be more depth now that their will be actual naval battles and the use of tactics in this realm thrill me because I've always felt cheated in the naval "battles" in RTW, MTW, and MTW2.

Now that's not to say I wouldn't have LOVED STW2!!! Man that would be sweet.

I believe that this will be great and most of us will be pleased with the latest product.

I'd rather have one car with four wheels than two with two wheels less...

When I saw the announcement of this game I thought it was such a disrespect to the people who bought Medieval II for starters that I was shocked only by that. But for what I'm witnessing on this thread, the producers won't get the response they should be getting, since the community accepts this with open arms. I'll remain a nay sayer unless the next games proves to be an step forward and not an step back like Medieval II, wich aside for a graphic update, didn't get any better over Rome.

Well to me it's seems like CA is trying to make a Space Shuttle while they couldn't make a car work as it should.

The era itself is interesting, they new tactical and strategic possibilities seem nice, but adding naval battles when they couldn't make land working as intended... It could be that they have bitten of more than they can chew...

If we judge by how M2TW didn't improve much on RTW, if anything, it introduced new problems and bugs than ETW could be a serious mistake. New engine, new type of units, naval battles... I don't know...

If we get land battles like they were in M2TW and naval battles that are equally buggy, than all this has been for nothing.

I really hope I'm wrong and that CA UK will finally make a finished game. Good luck...

Just a warning to all who post from here onwards. This thread is getting close to CA bashing. I do not like CA bashing. The Moderators and Admins do not like CA bashing. Please do not bash CA.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

IBut for what I'm witnessing on this thread, the producers won't get the response they should be getting, since the community accepts this with open arms.

---

Honestly, I got so tired of all the complaining after RTW that i hope we won't go there again. Most people who bought M2TW did so after knowing what Rome was like, that it had the same engine and they had the chance to play a demo (which told me enough).

Quote:

---

I'll remain a nay sayer unless the next games proves to be an step forward and not an step back like Medieval II, wich aside for a graphic update, didn't get any better over Rome.

---

Same for me, though I'm mostly concerned about the strategic layer, the way it was done in Rome killed all the fun of the game for me, and M2TW didn't appear to do it any better, so I stayed clear of that game. I'll ask around on the Org what people think of the game after it's released and base my decision on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Just a warning to all who post from here onwards. This thread is getting close to CA bashing. I do not like CA bashing. The Moderators and Admins do not like CA bashing. Please do not bash CA.

:bow:

---

Bashing is a no-no. But criticism, expecially argumented and constructive criticism is a good thing.

M2TW looks more like a RTW mod than a new game. Considering that they had an engine (RTW) and most of the research done (MTW), they way they made the game is a disgrace for such an acclaimed company like CA is, IMHO.

I hope that ETW will be taken much more seriously.

Please don't ask that we all shower CA with praises they don't deserve. It'll be counter-productive. I'm sending happy thoughts and hope that they will learn from their mistakes and make a game that will make gamers happy and which will in turn earn them good money, which is the point of every game.

If we're gonna limit ourselves only to praises than there is no point in this forum...

Constructive Critisism, yes. Bashing like we had for M2TW (The only one i was here for) is no. Everything so far is ok, but it is tinkering on the edge. A few trolls can do some damage.

I'm happy enough about the new era, I would liked for it to have started earlier though, so we could have had some good old English Civil War action with pike and musket.

Still, it gets my thumbs up as a good direction for CA to take, especially with the inclusion of naval warfare.

Yes I am satisfied with the era, but as with the previous post, I would have loved seeing it start earlier too. Say around 1520 LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Constructive Critisism, yes. Bashing like we had for M2TW (The only one i was here for) is no. Everything so far is ok, but it is tinkering on the edge. A few trolls can do some damage.

---

Don't worry, I'm sure the mods would step in if anything bad were to crop up. Thus far, I've only seen legitimate answers and opinions with regards to the opening question of this topic.

Yup!

If anything does pop up Tosa can expect a PM. :shifty:

Anyone here ever play Sid Meier's Gettysburg?

If this game is like that on the battle map, coupled with a campaign map, and naval battles, it will be awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Yup!

If anything does pop up Tosa can expect a PM. :shifty:

---

Off topic: I think you're better off just clikcing report post on the offending post, that way Tosa won't get spammed quite so much.

Oh probably. But it would send a PM to Tosa anyway. He is the only moderator here right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Oh probably. But it would send a PM to Tosa anyway. He is the only moderator here right now.

---

Hmm you're right, I thought this forum had its own moderators already.

I havent seen Tosa on lately...:shrug: Too busy right now?

hmmm,

+ Ability to build empires
+ Sea Battles!
+Yarr! Pirates!
+Rum!
+Ability to build empires
+New engine (M2TW engine wouldn't be able to handle rum.)
+Graphics look good
+AI sounds promising

-promised this before
-gonna cost us money! (when we are about to get kingdoms too)
-we now have to wait for it

I like the period, I think that it will be a good era, it should be fun, and if we can travel from the americas to australia that will make me happy.

Well, why are you people so angry about the modablility and all. You do realise that the majority of the players who actually play these games don't even use them? In my area I know of 15 people who actively play the total war series. They all love them to bits and guess what. Only one other person aside from myself actually uses mods that I didn't get for them. (thats right, I actually spend money to give your mods to people....) So stop being so harsh. It actually doesn't matter to the general user and if you want to mod find your own ways to do it without bothering the developer. (While I may sound it I am not anit-mod or anti org. I love most of the material you guys have put out there and will continue to play them.) I mean you actually expect them to spend hours and hours making a game completely moddable for you? That actually costs them money you know and you should really be forced to pay for that ability. Yet you groan and whine when they don't make it as accessible as you want it. Well then go make it yourself you whiners. If you can do something about yet choose not too you have no right to complain. (I mean look at alpaca, grumpyoldman, and knight errent. They developed the tools for FREE and made the game moddable on their own time because they love the games. So stop your whining and learn how to program/hex edit.) I mean if you really wanted a game bug free and moddable don't buy sh*tty games and they won't make them!

Okay so now that that is out of my system I will continue.

As for those who say this era is not tactical you have not played NTW2. I mean aside from basic hammer and anvil tactics and flanking was the medieval period all that tactical? The ancient time period was I agree but not nearly to the extent that musket era was. Read the chapter in the book SHOGUN when john Blackthorne decribes one of the musket battle he saw in the netherlands? They were insanely complicated and required immense tactical skill and inniative to win. Comparing this era to the other two mentioned is like comparing chess to checkers. Sure they are both enjoyable strategy games but one does not have the depth and lgoical reasoning of the other.

This period probably has the best naval battles in history except possibly the battles of the classical period and possibly some asain stuff that I don't know about. I mean, who hasn't had dreams of attacking a spanish galleon and using superior speed and skill to outwit her massive amounts of both men and firepower?

I have complete trust in CA to deliver another great game that is a sweet and liberating choice when compared to its ultimately drab and pathetic counterparts in the RTS genre. (Excludin EU, Civilization, and Age of Sail) Seriously, how many manic yet tactically limiting basebilders can you handle before that thirty story window starts looking awfully inviting.

My Wants.

I would like the sailing game to be good, balanced within reason and able to live up to its real-life counterpart.

Good diplomacy but the diplomacy from Medieval would be fine.

Mass battles but with the UI to go with it. Don't make it so that it looks nice but you can't control the 30 000 men you just invested millions of pounds on...

Oh, and a Gatling gun..... That would be good.

Now the above (and below) statement/s do not apply to everyone or even the majority. But seriously, some of you people need to unclench your buttholes and start passing real stools like the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durallan

-promised this before

---

Exactly...

I've read the Diplomacy from Medieval2 is fine?:wall:

Oh my god - with this diplomacy during a age of important diplomatic decissions we are lost in senseless battles.
Why a campaign i ask - we could also play a handful battles then.

Hurray!!!

I just found out about the game. This gunpowder setting has been my dream since shogun. I cant wait to get it!! :2thumbsup:

it will be best exciting expectation that i have ever made in total war series.
i love the period warfare in which gunpowder and smoke filled in the battle, the style, the gorgeous uniform, the verbal orders in the air..ect. Now i hope that CA will finish the development and release it in the market without a trouble.

I am more excited than any other title to date. The possibility for one of the greatest games ever created is at the feet of CA.

Edit: On second thought, now that they are controlled by SEGA, I should probably be prepared to be dissapointed like I was for M2TW. Not to be negative, but that was all flash and no substance. I played it for a month and have barely touched it since. Every faction was virtually the same and the unit selection was horrific. Sure it looked pretty, but who cares what it looks like if it plays like an arcade game?

Sorry for the downer, I just don't want to get my hopes up. I'm going to keep my expectations low and plan for CA to have their creative hands tied by SEGA.

Our dream is done.

In years and years, we will be able to do a WII mod!Without airplane, but something is something!

what about a tw about native americans,not like kingdoms,but from southern canada to northern south america,i got the name,TRIBAL TOTAL WAR!!!:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garcilaso de la Vega el Inca

Our dream is done.

In years and years, we will be able to do a WII mod!Without airplane, but something is something!

---

Starts the chant trenches trenches trenches trenches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoyarPunk

Count me in as a "Not Sure".

Not crazy about this period of history....but then again, CA couldn't keep retreading old ground (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) could they?

---

Could make a STW 2 and RTW2 with a brand new expasion pack for each one of course. But THat would be somewhat boring. We already have RTW that came out not to long ago. We still have STW that still somewhat poular. So I think they should wait and come out with 1 or 2 new games before they Do a RTW2 or (the one they should do first) STW2.




I'm not sure. MP Wise, it's looks good, with the ladders and rankings, what i been waiting for. But They always promise to make MP better with each game/expasion and they never do. Comee out with Patches that fix 1 or 2 MP ploblems and leave the rest go.

I'm not sure how the Sea Battles would go. what the tactics? Line your ships up, FIre, and just wait? Can you get to board,or no? can you see the ship sink and the bodies foating around? I mean,:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

So I think they should wait and come out with 1 or 2 new games before they Do a RTW2 or (the one they should do first) STW2.

---

That is too long! :dizzy: STW2 (or what ever else) after empire and RTW2 after it in 2012 will be optimal variant, I guess. As I'm not a STW fun I'm not so interested in 2 future TWs, but even 8 years (!) waiting for next Rome is too long for me!
Can you imagine - I was 14 years old then played Rtw first time, and will be 22 y-old then Rtw2 comes out...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charge

That is too long! :dizzy: STW2 (or what ever else) after empire and RTW2 after it in 2012 will be optimal variant, I guess. As I'm not a STW fun I'm not so interested in 2 future TWs, but even 8 years (!) waiting for next Rome is too long for me!
Can you imagine - I was 14 years old then played Rtw first time, and will be 22 y-old then Rtw2 comes out...

---

Yea, but you think people would get sick of doing STW2 and RTW2?



RTW and RTW2. Wow, big deal, same games, only better graphics and a few new options for the latter! :inquisitive:


I want NEW TW games. Yea, it nice to make re-makes, but I want NEW, not re-makes.

Generally it doesn't matter re- or not re-making. We want engine improvements with new features, new abilities, improved gameplay. Re making - M2TW after RTW. This is a remaking.
I would sent this empire to hell if there are no improvements in gameplay. Actually it has it, but I'll sent it anyway cause I'm Rome fan :grin:
You seriously think that in Rome2 will be nothing except better graphics and few new options? It can be absolutely new game, if CA will manage this. And for most its a best time setting...

IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:egypt:

Better do it this way Ozzman101:

IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:rtwno:

:logic:

;)

I prefer STW 2 over RTW2, STW was way better. But This isn't the place for that debate, correct?

Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

---

https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/...2662013ij2.jpg

I never understood you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Better do it this way Ozzman101:

IM WITH CHARGE,ROME RULES,I WUOLD DIE FOR A 2ND ONE!:rtwno:

:logic:

;)

---

where did you get the ceaser smiley?
and shogun sucked,those dum ningas looked like gay peaces of paper.and like 2 factions!

:rtwno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

where did you get the ceaser smiley?

---

The code for the Caesar smiley shown is ":rtwno:". You can find the codes for more usable smilies here. To show them in your posts, simply copy and paste the provided codes into the posting area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

...and shogun sucked,those dum ningas looked like gay peaces of paper...

---

Graphical content isn't necessary everything Ozzman - I have played quite a few older games recently, which have contained little more than 2D sprites. Despite this, they still have retained my interest for an as long, if not longer, period of time as some of the more modern and graphically rich games.

For me at least, graphical effects are a nice addition, but other factors, such as immersion, depth, AI and atmosphere, are much more important and can make or break the game itself. After all, in a game purely comprised of high-quality effects and eye-candy, once all the graphics have been seen, there is often nothing left to hold the interest of the player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

...and like 2 factions!

---

There was a lower number of factions in Shogun compared to the later games, as I remember it was a total of eight, but I found that it didn't really detract from the overall gameplay experience.

LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)

---

More Stragety then RTW :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1

LOL That game needed no strategy,send yourr flat hourses to the skirmeshers,the horses hit and trample like in rune scape,and the samurias fall to the ground and make the game even harder to see!(i would rather play rune scape)

---

Skirmishers can be put on hold. A few good volleys can rout cavalry.

Mark me down as a "yes". I thought they would return to Asia, but I'm willing to wait for that, confident that it's in the pipeline of development, somewhere.

Meanwhile, gunpowder and naval will introduce new challenges to me, the player - always good fun.

On the downside, it's probably gonna require a hardware update for my 3-year old rig. So, this $60 game will cost me @$2,000 in one-time cashflow.

Prices are growing unstoppable...

I've got to agree with you KukriKhan, I haven't been able to upgrade to play M2:TW yet, so I've got no chance of playing this yet. Overall though, after playing Napoleonic 2, which I must say is fantastic, I realise what a great era this is. Its also nice to have a change and have to develop tactics for gunpowder and the naval battles look amazing.

yes!

cant wait for RTW2!

I can't wait for MTW3

Oooo! You already have two games - one best graphics and one most qualitative, and we have only one with crappy realization . So you'd better wait couple of years... Firstly RTW2! :charge::charge::charge:

.
I already expressed my delight about finally including true naval battles in TW. Well, the best era for naval theme is XVI. through XIX. centuries, second half of which has been announced for the upcoming Empire. So, yes, I'm happy. :yes:

:rtwyes:

A post-medieval game could better be considered as the next title -presumably- using the same engine. Or an expansion maybe... ~;)
.

I can't wait for TROFB2TW

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCambyses
I can't wait for TROFB2TW

---

That's the spirit