Happy with the decision made?

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.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adembroski

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shogun

One thing I hate is historical simulation games moving forward to firearm/modern warfare. I vote no.

---

Luddite ;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoplite7

I was hoping for R2:TW to be honest. Lining people up with guns doesn't seem at all very interesting to me, it's kind of like having an all-foot archer battle in M2:tw. I prefered the more exotic feel to Rome as well, variety of units and situations. (elephants, chariots, barbarians ect)

---

Couldn't have put it better myself. :yes:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

Luddite ;)

---

Almost.

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Shogun

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.

---

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...

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

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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?

---

Couldn't have put it better myself!