rtw2 is definitly the way to go,i always liked tw games beacause they only use bows and shields(they have guns but thats ruining the tradition,part of why i HATE shuogu:clown: :hmg: n
Printable View
rtw2 is definitly the way to go,i always liked tw games beacause they only use bows and shields(they have guns but thats ruining the tradition,part of why i HATE shuogu:clown: :hmg: n
So, I herd you liek mudkips... (PS:Shogun) MTW was the best game evar!!!!
I voted yes, but mostly because it is my favourite era of the realistic ones. I really think, and I may be wrong in this that a game with TW scale would work brilliantly in the WW1 or WW2 era I would love to fight the battle of Kursk or Verdun not with 3 or 4 tanks and 20 infantrymen but with 500 tanks and 10,000 men, with the whole load of artillery and everything else. I know its probably never going to happen and I should instead pray for a mod of Supreme Commander in that ear but still.
However as I doubt my dream will ever come true yippe for Empire Total War the closest I'll ever get.:beam:
No, RTW2 will be the best game ever!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
(is that "talk in ur own dialect" I see there from Vuk's thread?)
No..
I will wait about 1 year to buy the game after its release. That's when the final patch comes out, and the modders have fixed the other problems, and made it slightly enjoyable.
But I do think the era will be great.
I will be comparing it to Sid Meier's Gettysburg.
Absolutely, the best era for the game mechanics and one of the most interesting in history combined - excellent!
Tightly drilled formations, marching in order against other similar enemies. I have always felt uncomfortable about "units" of medieval spearmen marching around, let alone bands of barbarians doing the same thing. The Romans did, but many of their opponents didn't and I feel CA have always had to compromise with how the units look and feel on the battlefield. In ETW, it will at least look right.
As for the setting, it is the time when the world emerged as it is today. Too often it is ignored in school (probably becasue it is not PC). Not only did nations begin to emerge as we see them now, but political thought, progress, innovation, Reason starting to banish superstition and religion, etc... The Enlightenment - you can't get better than that.
Hi All,
I rushed out & bought it - I'm now back playing MTW2. I do like all the new units & maps but I realised I love the big map scenario - I enjoy many of the mods which expand the map.
Personal choice really but smaller map=unhappy henry!!
Henry
hmmm.... You rushed out and bought it? Do you know something none of us do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry707
The game isn't released till next year.
You sure you're not talking about Kingdoms TW? That's just been released.
havent you guys always wanted to see a rtw sea battle:inquisitive:
MTW2 may have better graphics and more developed trade and diplomatic system but when playability comes to scene it can't even come near MTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by K COSSACK
You'll never have a 6 hour battle (in real world time) defending a forest against hordes and hordes,like 4 thou, of mongols and win! That you could do in MTW and can't now.
And voted yes. Napoleonic warfare is cool and untouched by CA till now. + will look forward to those new medieval mods in ETW.
Methinks he was referring to Shogun (hence the smaller map comment).Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
the only reason i would buy a new shogun is for a cool shugon sea battle,but battles where still very small at sea at that time
just heard of ETW and i gota say i can't wait for this game..sounds soooo much fun with gunpowder age. i just hope the battles are graphical and the units more detailed and colored though :2thumbsup:
i HEAR YA !!(cant wait for etw)
.
Welcome to the ORG S.Selim_1. :bow:
Any chance you're from Sultanselim? :wacko:
.
yep...just a fan of his conquests..i'm egyptian by the way:egypt:
.
I live in 15 minues walking distance from his tomb, which is in the neighbourhood named after himself. ~:)
But Egypt... That's a world by herself. :bow:
.
turkey..i luv turkey..i play with the turks i M2TW rather than egypt..i'm a fan of the ottoman empire..so excited to c it in ETW
I really dont understand this obsession people have with getting RTW2. I dont see how it would end up that much different to the original RTW.
As for STW2, IMO the original STW is probably too small and limited a topic for a new TW game. I think it would make an excellent subject for an expansion pack of an Asia:Total War game though.
Hello Ozzman1O1,
Shogun sea battles may be a disappointment, unless you add say the Korean naval forces.
The Japanase seabattles were more like: tie some ships together, add some extra planking (thus creating a floating platform) and do the normal melee.
The Korean navy used artillery. There's an anekdote of a naval war between Korea and the Japan late 16th century. The samurai wanted to board, the Korean just wanted to sink ships. At some point the crew of two Japanese ships managed to throw grappling hooks to a Korean ship. The two commanders started to quarel who was allowed to board and cut each others grappling ropes. The Korean ship managed to get away.
WHATS WITH ALL THE NEW ASIAN TWS?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
Sorry, i didnt quite catch that. Could you speak up a bit please?
im just saying this (asian total war) thing wont be as fun,name a famouse ancient asian battle,im waiting
Sekigahara.
Well, that's a rather absurd question, considering that the concept of 'famous' is a relativist social construct is completely unprovable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
Apparently Oz is 10, "relativist social construct" might be a bit OTT.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
Oz - It depends on your point of view.
Anyway, you're right there is a vocal minority who constantly clamour for a Far Eastern setting. I think there are two kinds of people in that minority. Firstly, people who genuinely are interested in the area an its military history. Good for them, there is no real reason why there shouldn't be a "Asian" TW. Except for the secong group. These in my opinion are actually more interested in some kind of Fantasy TW. All they want is a setting that would really let their limited imaginations rip. So, you can have Chinese machine gun Xbows, Bruce Lee as a special agent (?), warrior monks with the ablility to slow time, etc... ad nauseam (till you puke).
This 'second group' you speak of... that's a new one on me. I dont think i've ever seen any evidence that it exists. Are you sure about that? Or did i miss something? LINKS PLZ.
Personally i think an ATW would be a great idea, primarily because it would be something new, as opposed to just churning out remakes of the previous games.
As for fantasy total war: that gets my vote too. Thinking more dragons ogres and elves than made up asian stuff though. Master of Magic: Total war is what i want really.
Nothing new. All the same. Just another terrain and factions, where you see something new?
maybe a time the same as the last samuria would work,when the british traded in asia,only good asian war time,where there were great sea battles
3d naval battles, earth walls(trenches?), controlling buildings, etc etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
Depends what you want. I think one of the main selling points of the TW series to date has been that it is rooted(ish) in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveybaby
The second group. The games are developed by and aimed at a Western audience, who are for the most part ignorant of eastern history. It seems to be treated like some kind of fantasy lalaland, where "cool" and BS are more valued than prosaic reality. Portaying a "samurai" as a fallible person rather than some kind of super human martial artist seems to be impossible, hence their desire for an Eastern setting - patronising. CA are susceptible to it - the super samurai guy in Shogun who could take on a whole formation by himself.
Hello Ozzman1O1,Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzman1O1
I'm not sure how large scale the battles were between the European factions that time (~1850), wasn't Englands (USA?) naval power pretty sealed there already?
There was no Asian naval force. It was around the time Japan started to build one (some ships were built in The Netherlands).
I would love a medieval TW game in East Asia.
(Copied from the TWC from myself. If you go over there the bullet points are links - can't be bothered to get it to work here as well)
I think the game mechanics (firearms, naval battles, etc..) are setting themselves up nicely to delve into the 19th century and its many misunderstandings. In fact I think the mechanics lend themselves to this era and style of fighting much better than any other (hope so anyway).
1810s
* South American revolutions
1820s
* 1820: Liberia founded by the American Colonization Society for freed American slaves.
* 1821-27: Greece becomes the first country to break away from the Ottoman Empire after the Greek War of Independence.
* 1823-87: The British Empire annexed Burma (now called Myanmar) after three Anglo-Burmese Wars.
* 1826-28: After the final Russo-Persian War, the Persian Empire took back territory lost to Russia from the previous war.
* 1825-28: The Argentina-Brazil War results in the independence of Uruguay.
* Portuguese Civil War, 1828-1834
1830s
* 1830: France invades and occupies Algeria.
* 1830: The Belgian Revolution in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
* 1830: Greater Colombia dissolved and the nations of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama took its place.
* Polish Rebellion 1830-1831
* 1833: Slavery Abolition Act bans slavery throughout the British Empire.
* 1833-76: Carlist Wars in Spain.
* 1835-36: The Texas Revolution in Mexico resulted in the short-lived Republic of Texas.
* 1837-1901: Queen Victoria's reign is considered the apex of the British Empire and is referred to as the Victorian era.
o Many, many, many military campaigns. Read any of the Flashman books for British Military entaglements in this period. Very funny and well informed, I'd recommend them to anyone who has an inflated view of "military glory".* 1838-40: Civil war in the Federal Republic of Central America led to the foundings of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.
o First Anglo-Afghan War 1838-1842
o (First) Opium War 1839-1842
o First Anglo-Sikh War Punjab 1845-1846
o 2nd Anglo-Sikh WarPunjab 1848-1849
o 2nd Anglo-Burmese War 1852
o Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880
o Third Anglo-Burmese War 1885
o Etc...
* 1839-51: Uruguayan Civil War
* 1839-60: After two Opium Wars, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and Russia gained many concessions from ChinaQing Dynasty. resulting in the decline of the
1840s
* 1840: New Zealand is founded, as the Treaty of Waitangi is signed by the Maori and British.
* 1846-48: The Mexican-American War leads to Mexico's cession of much of the modern-day Southwestern United States.
* E : Matiner's War 1846-1849
* 1848: The Communist Manifesto published.
* 1848: Revolutions of 1848 in Europe
1850s
* 1851-64: The Taiping Rebellion in China is the bloodiest conflict of the century.
* 1854-56: Crimean War between France, the United Kingdom, the Ottoman Empire and Russia
* 1857-58: Indian Mutiny of 1857
* Franco-Austrian War 1859 (leads to the creation of the Red Cross due to the large number of casualties and lack of care)
* Spanish-Moroccan War, 1859-1860
1860s
* Garibaldi's Expedition against Sicily 1860/1861
* 1861-65: American Civil War between the Union and seceding Confederacy
* 1861-67: French intervention in Mexico
* Polish Rebellion 1863-1864
* German-Danish War 1864
* 1864-66: The Chincha Islands War was an attempt by Spain to regain its South American colonies.
* 1864-70: The War of the Triple Alliance ends Paraguayan ambitions for expansion and destroys much of the Paraguayan population.
* Guano War 1865-1866 Spain - Peru, Chile
* 1866: Austro-Prussian War results in the dissolution of the German Confederation and the creation of the North German ConfederationAustrian-Hungarian Dual Monarchy. and the
1870s
* 1870-71: The Franco-Prussian War
* 1877-78: The Balkans are freed from the Ottoman Empire after another Russo-Turkish War in the Treaty of Berlin.
* 1879: Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa.
* 1879-84: War of the Pacific between Peru, Bolivia and Chile.
* Pacific War 1879-1884 Chile - Peru, Bolivia
1880s
* 1880-1881: the First Boer War.
* 1884-85: The Berlin Conference signals the start of the European "scramble for Africa". Attending nations also agree to ban trade in slaves.
* 1884-85: The Sino-French War led to the formation of French Indochina.
* 1886: Russian-Circassian War ended with the defeat and the exile of many Circassians. Imam Shamil defeated.
1890s
* 1890: The Wounded Knee Massacre was the last battle in the American Indian Wars. This event represents the end of the American Old West.
* 1894-95: After the First Sino-Japanese War, China cedes Taiwan to Japan and grants Japan a free hand in Korea.
* 1895-1896: Ethiopia defeats Italy in the First Italo–Ethiopian War.
* 1898: The United States gains control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War.
* 1898-1900: The Boxer Rebellion in China is suppressed by an Eight-Nation Alliance.
* 1898-1902: The One Thousand Days war in Colombia breaks out between the "Liberales" and "Conservadores," culminating with the loss of Panama in 1903.
* 1899: Second Boer War
* Philippine-American War
I'm happy, even though i didnt vote for it. It includes asia, so i'm happy. ALso i wasnt expecting it to include indonesia, which is a major bonus.
Really?idonesia!I love factions that live on islans for some reason,and if theres indonesia,maybe theres Ausralia!!!:australia: :australia: :australia:
I hate to say it, but I very much doubt that ETW will be a game I'll play. I'm willing to look (I only play CIV and TW) but given the direction that the last two games have gone, I doubt that CA are up to the task of creating a game that will satisfy me.
I hate to hear that Spencer. I'm hoping that we can prove you wrong with Empire. I'm glad that you are at least willing to wait and see what we produce.
Fact remains though, people will still whinge no matter what happens.
I have never found anything to lessen my enjoyment of TW games, I started with RTW.
If you dont like something in a game, mod it out, or find a mod that does it for you.
I downloaded Ultimate AI, for M2TW and i tell you, fixes everything on the campaign map. Much harder, but more enjoyable.
I am a fanatical melee fan. I will often order troops to do whatever, while watching a unit duke it off with another. Cheer on the single guy, count his kill streak etc. If i unmute my sounds, when a man gets 2 kills in a row, i play unreal tournament sound "Double Kill!" etc.
CA have lost a lot of people over the time of RTW and M2TW, but they have gained many as well. Disgruntled M2TW fans would be appeased by a patch.
On to ETW: Even though it may not be orientated as much on the melee fights as the last two games, the sea battles and the new engine will get my money.
If you dont like the time period, bad luck, they are doing this one, if you are concerned they will get something wrong, post it up. If it is to do with history, give references.
CA are willing to take help from us, as long as they can see why it is nessacery and if historical, facts to back it up.
A bit of a generalisation, but yes there are some "whingers" though I dislike the "whinger" label because it tends to put all of those people that criticise the game into one category - i.e. naysayers and ne'er-do-wells that exist only to complain. This makes for such people's opinions being conveniently dispensed with as "whinging".Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
You started with RTW, so your expectations possibly don't exceed RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
Not everyone is a modder, and there's always limitations as to what you can mod - AI and diplomacy being among those. Generally those that frequent one of the fan forums or official forums tend to be modders and considering that the vast majority of TW players don't visit any TW related forum, they are for the most part probably not aware of existing mods/modding.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
RTW was patched up to v1.5 and is still buggy, especially in battles and sieges in particular. From what I've heard M2TW still has many of these same problems, which is why CA won't be getting my cash this time. The problem is that RTW is to date still not completely fixed. M2TW inherited many of those old problems. (CA are even effectively admitting this in the ETW blurb about the diplomatic AI and warfare AI working against each other.)Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I have yet to see anything except eye candy screenshots of naval battles, which don't interest me in the slightest. The TW series doesn't need any more toys such as naval battles, it needs land battles to be fixed first.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
So you say, but anyone posting any of their "concerns" is likely to be pigeon holed into the "whinger" category.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
I disagree, historical relevance has always taken a back seat. The games are historically themed, and that's about it. If you were to push CA for a feature/faction/etc on a purely historical basis then you would probably be wasting your time. The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
:bow:
Campaign AI is moddable in M2TW, but not completely.Quote:
I'm not familiar with this mod, but I doubt it actually "fixes" AI, which is hardcoded of course.
Thanks for your feedback Caravel, it seems as though i need to rethink my approach to some of my points.
:bow:
My main hope with this new game is the new engine. Even so, I hope the demo has more than battles, I would like to see the campaign in action before I buy.
Land battle improvement is needed, the redundance needs to be reduced aye, and that I believe is being done with the new engine and all in ETW, but that you don't need or want naval battles??!! :O !! Naval battles, I say are going to be the biggest plus point here!! A whole new dimension to the gameplay!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I sure am waiting for ETW!!
Hello all, I ve peeked in over here, as I did with M2TW just to see what was going on.
I love ships. I studied the voyages of Captain Cook, the Mutiny records of the Bounty, the discovery of Australia-all very fascinating.
But this concept for a Total War game is a bit "off". I would never have imagined the series to go this way rather than say the English Revolution (Cromwell) or the Boer War, the Zulu Uprising or the American War of Independence ("The Patriot")
Ships just dont make for : a) protagonists in a strategy game-they re exciting to manouevre, and breathtaking visually, but if you ve played ""Ïmperial Glory" you can see the limitations.
b) tactical niceties and nuances which even RTW ,I must concede, sort of allowed for.
Im only just getting to grips with MTW by playing the smaller VI map and I reckon if I can win/lose/ learn from a few more battles and campaigns, and appreciate the depth and possiblity in the game, I might-just might- be ready to go on to (and back to) Shogun Total War with its punishing AI.
I won as the Mercians the other day-not a terrifically challenging faction (and on Normal) especially when you see what other players have done and are doing, but I was really chuffed (delighted) because for once I had used all that was in the game to "earn"a victory, which actually required effort.
I think that s gone missing.
All the best.
yeah.. i want to say i'm not that exicted about naval battles..i think everyone has given this new option in ETW too much attention. obviously navy was the main source for every empire in this era for exploration and expansion but i cannot see how intresting watching ships firing at each other (and please, if u think it is intresting..just y?).
the era is just awesome. i'm a bit sad that it only last for a century but that's not CA's problem..it is history. i'm looking forward for the land battles more than any thing else. i hope they come with many ideas as possible to do in the battle field..i just dont want to see same battles over and over again.
Well IMHO I've never seen a game yet that managed to cram two types of simulation into one game successfully. For example I've never seen a superb flight sim that also included a superb MBT or helicopter sim nor have I seen a superb naval sim that included a superb submarine sim. In my experience those "bit of everything" games are jacks of all trades and masters of none. I'm even more sceptical when this is coming from a games developer that still hasn't anywhere near perfected melee land battle simulations let alone sea battles. Naval simulations involve a lot of paramters such as wind, current, fog and other weather conditions. I can't see all of this, along with the realistic shot, trajectories, windage, real cannon crews and sea conditions going into a total war game. Prove me wrong CA, instead of coming out with the usual 'it will be fun' or 'the graphics will be stunning'.Quote:
Originally Posted by asj_india
I think 19th century would be better,..
Not always, but looks seem to sell better nowadays compared to good solid AI and game play as a marketing tool. I think the latter should become more the focus in general when you design and produce a game. CA should be able with all their resources and experience to deliver both on a very high standard.Quote:
The main focus of modern games developers is "jaw dropping" visuals. It is visuals that swing it in the modern gaming market.
LZ
Naval combat of the era was much more than ships just firing at each other, though I suppose that such warfare would play out a touch slower than most action-oriented types would like. I enjoy it for many reasons. Trying to get the wind on your side, that you might control the engagement, for instance. There is a great deal of planning and decision making that must occur before you actually meet with the enemy. To plan it out carefully and then watch the carnage unfold would be quite fun to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Selim_1
Just like Trafalgar, ships approaching each other in good order and an eerie quiet (from what I've read, anyways), meeting one another in a titanic bloody clash that altered history forever. I think having well simulated naval combat in this game would be a great thing. Hell, in this time period England's great strength was her navy. To relegate naval warfare to the sort of role it has had in past TW games would not do justice to this era.
The way CA's battle AI system has worked, I get really involved in the game only to have a random glitch or uncooperative unit destroy hours of work I'd invested.
Yes, I save, but it's maddening to have to remember to save every single turn unless something goes wrong. I'm a little OCD already, so when something goes wrong and I had absolutely no way of correcting it besides hoping when I reload it for the third time that those Archers won't sally out of the city, letting the enemy in, when I told them to get up on the walls in the first place.
They're capable of putting out the quality the industry requires of them, but with such complex games as these merely the smallest problem can ruin entire campaigns.
Many times I'll get far into a campaign only to have something go wrong like defending units not cooperate with my commands, line up facing the wrong way, and my entire army and faction Heir get killed because of it. Granted this is an extreme example, but it's been what's discouraged me from buying the expansions. I was only able to play RTW once heavily modded, and that lack of confidence in the stock game led to an even more dwindled sense of enjoyment.
I'm going to give MTW2 another chance in its current state, but I'm afraid my ever tenuous loyalty to CA is stretching as taut as allowed.
and of course Orda Khan has more succinctly stated my words already~
I'm very happy. This is, without a doubt, one of my favourite time frames in history.~:)
ah yes, as an amendment to my post - I've always wanted to play a game that really fleshed out this period in history. I was quite disappointed with Age of Empires 3 and the way missile combat mechanics worked, I'm sure CA will make it feel more "thunderous" :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
While I never would have guessed this was the direction they'd go, I am not surprised by it. It feels very natural, and I can't help but think it is the right direction to go with Total War right now.
The big question is, how far can they go in this direction? I'm not so much worried about this game- playing around with gunpowder units in Medieval has whetted my appetite enough- as what's next.
So what is next? Another rehash... Rome II, Shogun II? Personally I find the Shogun era utterly uninteresting. Someone with a very poor understanding of historical warfare said he has to suspend his disbelief when ordering a well formed group of cavalry around the battlefield, but in Shogun this is absolutely the case. As for Rome, I certainly wouldn't object to a redo, but it wouldn't be high on my priority list either.
My great hope for the Total War series is that eventually it will take the giant leap from historical combat to incorporate, even at an optional level, fantasy warfare. This would be best done as a license... Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings. While I love historically accurate warfare, there's an element of diversity of forces you can't get when everyone's human.
Although I wouldn't discount CA doing a fantasy title somewhere down the line I think its unlikely to be the next installment. CA tend to only develop a new gaming engine every other title. As ETW has the new engine the next game will have to recycle this so gunpowder and naval conflict are likely to be present. I don't think they can advance the series much further in time as the introduction of repeating rifles and small unit tactics doesn't suit the TW engine. My money would therefore be on a Pike & Musket period, from about where M2TW leaves off and ETW starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by adembroski
So you are guessing on something with the 30 years war then. That doesn't seem to have that wide an appeal except to Grognods. What ever they do I am betting on something a bit more popular in history though I doubt they will add air war if the navies work well that would be a simpler add on I think...
Im totally uninterested in this time period to be honest but I can't blame CA for going there. It was inevitable. I once thought I could make myself appreciate the time period with Europa Universalis 3 but although I love that game the time period just doesn't appeal to me.
Id absolutely love to see Rome redone. However Im a bit concerned by the fact that agents as characters on the campaign map are apparently being phased out. Maybe Im a freak, but I love the micromanagement.
I once liked the idea of a fantasy Total War but not anymore. The market is just clogged with boring, uninspired fantasy and despite being a massive fan, Im really sick of it.
Would hate for the Total War series to go into the modern era to, or for them to do any kind of Asian Total War just because again, I have no interest in them.
To be honest, if CA went and did all the Total War games I don't want, I wouldn't care. I still have Rome and Med 2 *Hugs games*
EDIT: Actually I got Kingdoms yesterday and I LOVE it. Maybe this kind of thing could be the way forward. Maybe we could have smaller campaigns focussed on warring Greek states and such. Id love that. Like it or not, "episodic gaming" will be the future, that's my prediction.
Gosh I can be thick! Commercial acceptance of the next gen….Pirates & Privateers! The Caribbean in the 16th to early 18th centuries. Of course the engine has possibilities as long as they move quickly enough that the Pirate craze has not died totally.
I could see this being a promising expansion pack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I'm very pleased with the dicison especially the garrison-able buildings this will this will make sieges more challenging and fun (hopefully they fix the AI too) and I'm all for Naval Battles, I do hope that they make the musketeers not soooo much like missile units in games past, I found my self only using them for defense and support of my infantry. still i CAN NOT wait!!! :2thumbsup:
Very happy and can't wait!!! The Lace Wars or Age of Reason whatever you want to call it is a favourite of mine.
As with all the previous TW games I'll be there on the release date to buy my copy and now that were going to have naval warfare too this should be the best yet.It's just a pity they didn't include the naval warfare in past games e.g.RTW,MTW and M2TW.
In the period of Empire which I now understand will be from 1700 to 1820 saw the europeon nations uniform there armies in national colours and this is a added pleasure for me as we should now see a good contrast in not just the various uniforms but colours too.Officers giving out orders and regimental music in the form of drummers,fifes and even bagpipes is going to add to the feel of land warfare.
As for the people who dont like gunpower weapons and the thought of just lining your troops up against the enemy sorry thats how it was historically and continued though the napoleonic period and even the start of the ACW until the start of trench warfare.You'll still have the bayonet charge and the use of the musket as a club for hand to hand and I'm sure the north american indians will have hatchets and knives to ambush the british.
For the first time I can easily say that I will be waiting to see what it is like and what other peoples feedback is like before I rush out to the store and buy it.
I voted no. Mainly because gunpowder age doesnt overly thrill me and as Zenicetus mentioned a lot of the battles, in my own line of thought, would be just stand and shoot until one is left standing.
Hopefully the sea battles will be everything that they are talking them up to be too (but again hopefully sea supremacy wont be the major part of the game).
Lets wait and see.......
it's good with me.
18th century warfare culminating to Napoleonic Wars was not about stand and shoot until the last one survive. The bayonet was invented and refined in that time frame for a purpose.
Annie
I love 18th century naval warfare though I have always found the land wars a bit less appealing but that is more the campaigns. I am very interested in the game but that said I still may not buy it if CA/SAGA are using the same invasive copy protection that they installed on Kingdoms, which I also have not purchased for that same reason.
I own every other game and expansion of the series, sometimes multiple copies. But I have to say that this is where I draw the line and I will not buy any new products until the copy protection is safe and noninvasive.
I am really more optimistic with this game as I read earlier in the post that M2 was made by the Australian group while the others were made by the UK group. If M2TW even had as many patches as RTW did (up to 1.5 was it?) I think it would be a vastly greater game then it is even now at 1.2 (although I hear about FactionHier having 1.3?). So yeah, I'm gonna wait for it to come out, read what people say, look for the patch support TW games need, and then judge if it will make my 2008 christmas list. Also, my response to the original question is that yes, I am happy with the decision made as I loved the gunpowder units along with pike support in the end of my campaigns in M2TW. Aventuros and Musketeers for the win!
So I'm guessing because soldiers are being lined up to be shot down with ease there will be about 50-80% of the army dead?
The engine for this game, without major modifications, will be useful from shortly after the end of the Pike and Musket era until the mid 1800 (around the American Civil War).
They're right to finally do naval battles... it'll add much needed depth to an era where land battles wont have much diversity of unit types. Unit decisions will be based on what you can afford, not what type of unit you need, since gone will be the Swords vs. Spears and Two-Handed vs. Shields debates.
For those pondering the direction the games can take, i reckon that if done correctly, they could probably do the entire second half of the 1800's up until the end of WW2 - and before people moan 'but how will planes work', they could be done like navies are currently done - pieces on the map, nothing more, that have a certain range depending on the planes in the stack and can be used to target enemy buildings - like assassins committing sabotage. Obviously, if there are enemy planes in that province then you'd risk losing some of yours, and obviously if civilians are killed through the bombing, then that would increase the amount of resistance you'll face upon invading the province. It would also increase the strategic value of some provinces, giving you the chance to build airfields there so you have greater reach into enemy territory.
And as for nukes - they could also easily be done. Limit factions to a maximum of maybe 5 (after all US, didn't have that many even by 1950) and make them hilariously expensive, as well as requiring the capture of certain provinces with the resources required (uranium!) and only allow them at certain times that correlate with the scientific advances that enabled them.
I feel this would be a pretty cool game. It would have a lot of scope, and you'd get a sense of just how much has changed in recent years.
One thing I hate is historical simulation games moving forward to firearm/modern warfare. I vote no.
Luddite ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun
I'm happy with the decision made, yes. However, I would have prefered if they had allowed the game to span over a longer period of time (like 1571 - 1815), to further the Pike & Musket feel. Also, it feels like just because personally commanded naval battles are the most eye-catching new feature of the game, too much emphasize is being put on them - but we'll just have to wait and see I guess.
And to those of you who aren't very interested in gunpowder warfare since it - according to you - basically means standing in line and shooting at each other: think again. The bayonet was invented during this period, cavalry charges were one of the most effective ways to defeat your opponent, and the musketeers were still equipped with rapiers and smallswords. For example, the Carolean army used pikemen until the end of the Great Northern Wars, and based its tactics on melee charges with a minimal use of gunpowder (one salvo, and then close combat was joined). Not until the second half of the 19th century did guns become so effective that no hand-to-hand fighting was needed.
Personally I think it's a pretty crap idea for a TW game as well, but voted yes anyway as I'm really past caring these days. Hopefully there will be a return to ancient/medieval warfare if future TW games.
Couldn't have put it better myself. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoplite7
Buy it? No.
Wait for it to drop in price until it comes free in a pack of cereal? Yes.
Install it once it comes free with my cornflakes? Depends what nasties are included with the software.
Almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Well, that's good to hear. At first, I only wanted to purchase this game for the new naval warfare feature, but seeing how it isn't what I thought it was, I'm more interested in buying it. I thought it was just a group of musketeers lining up in a straight line, shooting at the enemy until they rout them all.Quote:
And to those of you who aren't very interested in gunpowder warfare since it - according to you - basically means standing in line and shooting at each other: think again. The bayonet was invented during this period, cavalry charges were one of the most effective ways to defeat your opponent, and the musketeers were still equipped with rapiers and smallswords. For example, the Carolean army used pikemen until the end of the Great Northern Wars, and based its tactics on melee charges with a minimal use of gunpowder (one salvo, and then close combat was joined). Not until the second half of the 19th century did guns become so effective that no hand-to-hand fighting was needed.
Ever seen Kubrick's Barry Lyndon? There aren't too many battlescenes in it (it's not a war movie), but the first battle - the British bayonet charge into the French rear guard - is really awesome. The discipline it must have taken to march straight into that fire, only to join just as deadly melee combat right afterwards...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun
Its an interesting period with many new tactics, and much more ofcouse :D
But the best would have been a TW game focused on the Broken Crescnent theme, as the armies of the east dont just look exotic but also much better than european armies, also horse archery was common the, pro and con, pro: cool battle con: AI will be difficult to set up to handle HA, also I think cities of that area in that time were far better developed and less poor.
If you want to know my reason check out BC, history books on middle eastern warfare, and google :D
To all the people who say that combat will simply be lining up and shooting:
You couldn't be more wrong. This was the period of human warfare when maneuver became king. If CA does this right, flanking, redoubts, and infantry squares will all make an appearance. Your main line will hold, yes, but you will constantly be wheeling, looking for an opening to exploit.
Besides, how would you feel if I said Medieval Tactics were nothing more than men running and hacking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Duh, that'll take away the charm from the Total War series........plus, the world wars were a lot more serious and recent conflicts, I really don't think many critics will take a WW2 real-time game well, I mean, I scarcely think anyone will like to take a troop of Nazis and try and kill off a troop of the Allied Army or the vice versa......not at all nice :no:
Couldn't have put it better myself!Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars