Printable View
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?!).
We love to go a wandering, a wandering we do!!! Wanderlust!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
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:
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
I suppose some sort of patch 1.3 will be released when Kingdoms is, just like the 1.5 patch was with Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
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:
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:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
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:
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:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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:
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.
Bashing is a no-no. But criticism, expecially argumented and constructive criticism is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pevergreen