Printable View
This article is probably a must-read for all of us interested in ETW. In addition to revealing a fair bit of new information, it also gives an idea of how the game actually plays.
Perhaps even more importantly is the perspective from which the article is written. The author appears to be a Total War veteran, and is quite obviously skeptical as a result of his experiences with Medieval 2. Fellow cynics like myself would probably benefit from checking it out. :yes:
Excuse me? Does he know what M2TW mp players think about how powerful guns are in the late era?Quote:
... muskets featured in Medieval II, they were so wayward as to verge on useless.
He s a veteran alright, just not a total war one. Judging from the style i d say he s a veteran reviewer; the type of hired hand that can make the description of a tactical battle in an RPS game more mezmerising than a love scene from Lady Chatterly s lover.
His *impressions* seem suspiciously similar to press releases and promo-videos to me, word for word in parts.
I guess his name is Bond. James Bond.Quote:
One of the best ways of needling the enemy is to use a new unit called the Gentleman. This loveable rogue can be sent into enemy territory to duel opposition commanders or assassinate dignitaries, allowing high rankers to be eliminated without the need for battlefield confrontation. Wipe out a number of a faction's generals and they'll declare war. The Gentleman also has several other key skills. Ensconce him in an enemy's university and he'll steal their research, or if he's placed in one of yours, speed your discovery of new technologies.
CA is claiming this since MTW, and back then i couldnt figure out why, very few people were playing the SP part with autoresolve - at least now the mp campaigns give CA a valid reason to prepare for this. Another spreading out of resources amidst an ever increasing scope... hmmm i wonder in what that may result :stupido2:Quote:
The campaign can be played without fighting
Thanks for the link.
!it burnsus!
I liked the preview, it seemed rather even-handed. Good info, I especially liked the ability to raid settlements of the enemy when his forces are too weak to attack me in the field of honor, while being to strong to overcome when defending the walls of the city.
That was an interesting and well written preview. I especially liked the bit about being able to completely avoid conflict. I wonder if there will be a way to achieve a peaceful victory this time around?
It would be nice if there were diplomatic or social influence victory conditions, like those in Galactic Civilizations.
Sir Beane, from what I can tell, if you can get the most Prestige points without fighting anyone, then you could theoretically have a peaceful victory. Technology is one way to get those, making money might be another. I don't know if there are other ways though.
Hopefully other ways will include building up infrastructure and developing your lands. I would also hope that good diplomatic relations would help as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
One thing that concerns me though is the bit about the well placed shot to the enemy generals head causing the entire army to instantly rout. We all know how easy it has been to simply kill the ai's general or captain to achieve a vcitory. now with the predominance of ranged units is this going to become even easier.
Personnally i was hoping ca would abstract generals on the battlefield this time around since they would rarely become involved in hands on combat in this era.
@ gollum:
Yeah, I don't know what he was talking about. Muskets in M2TW are very effective, especially when you take away the fire_by_rank attribute in the EDU and form them in a 2-man-deep line, similar to the linear formations expected to be used in ETW.
Yeah, this has been confirmed in a previous preview. Generals will rarely, if ever, participate in a battle and will mostly hang about in the rear lines encouraging the soldiers at opportune moments. I expect to see Generals live long, full lives. Moreover, I wonder if they'll be capturable and ransomable, or perhaps they might be able to surrender and return home in honour/disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassbarman
You coward!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I say! Steady on old chap. Just because one makes enquiries as to the feasability of a peaceful resolution to conflict does not mean one becomes fearful of battle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
Why just thinking about the cry of the charge and the thunder of cannon, the screams of the fighters, the blood on the ground... bodies in heaps, the cries of the dying.... I feel feint, need to lie down...
:laugh4:
Peacful would be nice though, just to see a little variety in the enemies goals. If some factions were imperialistic and warlike, some were aiming to makes piles of money, some wanted social and technological revolution, and some just want to be friends it would make the campaign map a much mor einteresting and varied place.
I'll admit that concerned me a bit as well. I hope the enemy commander was simply killed by a lucky shot, and that we won't see AI generals dropping like flies as we have in previous TW titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassbarman
Seconded. While I certainly don't intend to shirk a fight, I really hope that not all factions will be warmongers either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I here understood the previewer to be talking about cannons more than muskets. In my limited M2TW experience, cannons can't hit an elephant at 10 meters, let alone target a 2 man deep rank at 3000 meters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah
From what I can see, we all want more realism over the previous emphasis of Total War games - which was basically just War. I too would like to see more peaceful ways of winning etc, and also AI that doesn't attack you for no reason. I'm a bit of a history buff, especially for 18th - 19th Century, and I kind of want historical accuracy to a certain extent.
Great preview, ta for the link.
Serpentine's had/have no problem hitting infantry.
Hmm even though he says the AI was better, nothing from his comments made it look that way. Let people a not scripted Bunker Hill already CA so we can see the real AI!
While serpentines may be accurate in general the other gunpowder artillery units in Med 2 are not. They should hopefully be significantly more accurate and powerful in Empire.
I noticed the writer mentioned that each volley killed ten or twenty men. That's quite a high casualty rate, and it makes me think unit sizes must have increased to be able to soak up that kind of damage.
If not battles are going to be very short and very bloody.
Yeah, mentioning the AI and how it performs in a scripted battle is pretty much useless. Hopefully some journalist worth his/her salt will ask CA if they can create a random battle and then pay close attention to how the AI handles itself.
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
I know what he is talking about - he's been using the TW_PREVIEW_TEMPLATE_1Quote:
Originally posted by Methuselah
Yeah, I don't know what he was talking about. Muskets in M2TW are very effective, especially when you take away the fire_by_rank attribute in the EDU and form them in a 2-man-deep line, similar to the linear formations expected to be used in ETW.
They always have to tell us for each and every title how much different things will be now since the era/setting etc are different- depite the fact that all elements TW gameplay (meleestringlightlyarmoured/meleeweakwellarmoured/shooterbow/shootercrossbows/grenades/guns/shootersmountedbows/meleecavalryfastandweak/meleecavalrystrongandslow) in land battles were coded in since STW.
Then, they describe their test play battle, where they always do a "mistake" by "underestimating the AI" or because they "played with previous experience" and they get "punished". That's to tell us how great and hard the game now is, as if they could from one battle. In M2TW it was the AI using the terrain, the reviewers were chearing because the Ai was putting spears in the wood as a measure against Knights - something that was supposedly an improvement, depsite the fact that the AI was doing it in M1TW and STW only to "forget it" in RTW. Guess what though, none of the 99.9999% score reviews for RTW mentioned it. They were too busy zooming in to watch the graphics i guess.
They proceed to describe the battle with folklore detail as in this case to get appetites soaring.
Then, they list all the info already already released in full, without missing a single bit of it, so youthink that "the article has great info" - there isnt a single piece of info that he mentiones that wasnt included in the promovideos or press releases. Its just the maxim "la repetition est le commencement d'etude" -freely translated - repeating is the start of learning. That's their job.
With all due respect to Martok, i just cant see the point where he is critical of M2. He only says that he'll keep full opinion until the review proper since its too early and that's it.
And by the way cannoins in M2TW can hitanything with great precision with a bit of simple, harmless home modding - all you need to do is change a number in a txt file. What i'm trying to say is that CA does not introduce things out of the blue too often - it usually works on things for a while, as it should. Artillery has been worked in the TW since M1TW that was introduced in. What you'll see in Empire wont be coming from outter space, in all probablity, it'll be the same old with better accuracy and lethality.
!it burnsus!
You have pretty much nailed the exact formula every preview has followed yet! Well done sir. Now you point it out it is fairly obvious that most writers have followed a very standard format.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
To truly get the measure of the game we wil have to wait until wither ourselves or fellow Orgahs have got our hands on it. We aren't being paid to say good things, so we can be brutally honest.
Very true.Quote:
To truly get the measure of the game we wil have to wait until wither ourselves or fellow Orgahs have got our hands on it.
At least to ourselves - not all orahs agree on everything - for example when M2TW came out Froggbeastegg (used here as an example due to her fame) found it to her taste and an improvement over RTW. With all due respect to Froggbeastegg i found it not to my taste and in many ways worse then RTW. Opinions vary.Quote:
We aren't being paid to say good things, so we can be brutally honest.
!it burnsus!
Interesting article, inspiring (albeit a professional piece), thanks for the link :smile:
To me, “the pudding” (proof of value) of a Total War game is in multiplayer team-play.
Can the particular issue in the series support the maximum number of players claimed?
Can it sustain the interest of the player-ship long enough to build a solid community of Clans dedicated to the title?
My perspective is ordered by what I perceive to be as the most exciting aspect of Total War gamming, the “big game”. This is ideally a four player Clan (organized and practiced) team, versus another four player Clan (organized and practiced) team. With the whole thing raised to a fever pitch a multi Clan, Seasonal playoff competition.
These ultimate bouts are in my estimation the “Olympics” of the Total War world. It simply does not get any better than this...
I am excited about all of the aspects to be enjoyed in Empire, but will be basically holding my breath (figuratively) to see if we can take it to the ultimate level of computer wargaming, the team competitions :charge:
If CA are to be believed then this game will have the best multiplayer yet. A multiplayer campaign, new multiplayer modes, a better multiplayer match-finder, a whole new challenge with naval battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
If they deliver on all they have promised then Empirewill be superb in multiplayer. Maybe even enough to tempt me into a clan or tournament. :beam:
From what i read he was firing 500 men to get that 10 to 20 kills if so that is only 2 percent hits .
I imagine this rate will vary greatly depending on the distance between the two units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slammer
I too hope that E:TW will be a great game to play online. Even a good AI goes only so far....
CA is been promising this for every title - and even though the SP part of the game improved in various points (not in all), the mp part went from bad to worse. With all due respect to CA, as far as credibility towards the mp player goes, they dont exactly deserve a price.Quote:
If CA are to be believed then this game will have the best multiplayer yet. A multiplayer campaign, new multiplayer modes, a better multiplayer match-finder, a whole new challenge with naval battles.
In other words, that *if* is a big one.
!it burnsus!
You know, after Rome I wasn’t going to buy again…
I did anyway, and swore I wasn’t ever going to buy again…
I have already preordered…
And you know why?
From Shogun, through all of the releases, expansions, revisions, with all of the delays and disappointments, one fact keeps me coming back.
That is; in spite of all of the irritation and exasperation, with all things considered, Total War games are the best games on the planet, bar none!
As failed and feeble as they may wheel out, in the end either by the developers corrections or community mod resurrection, they all shine.
Each a monument along the path in the pursuit of the perfect game that will probably never come, but we will get closer every time :2thumbsup:
Here here! It's great to see someone else who doesnt relentlessly bash CA for every little thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
A toast to Total War and the wonderful people who make it for us! ~:cheers:
Not to ruin the moment, but I wanted to add in my 2 cents.
Ahem :sweatdrop: I thought the article was pretty good in its presentation of information, but it was basically all stuff we knew before (as stated above). At least he had played a total war game before, and wasnt some random reviewer who slavishly worships disney movie game remakes or something ridiculous. Maybe the reason he hated gunpowder units so much was because he played as Scotland or something through gunpower age. It's a lonely feeling, I tell you. ~:(
A toast to Tomisama for being such a wonderful fellow and a keystone for the TW mp community all these years - not for the sales, not for the dough, not for the booze, not for the babes or the reviews - but for the sheer hell of it.
Companionship, honour and dedication = Tomisama.
:bow:
!it burnsus!
Cheers! ~:cheers: To Tomisama!Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
I was never happy with the power of assassins in previous games and 'the gentlemen' looks even worse. Can anyone name a high ranking general who was killed in a duel by a foreigner? How about one who was assassinated while with his army? Spies are fine, assassins are bogus (especially) in this time period.Quote:
One of the best ways of needling the enemy is to use a new unit called the Gentleman. This loveable rogue can be sent into enemy territory to duel opposition commanders or assassinate dignitaries, allowing high rankers to be eliminated without the need for battlefield confrontation. Wipe out a number of a faction's generals and they'll declare war. The Gentleman also has several other key skills. Ensconce him in an enemy's university and he'll steal their research, or if he's placed in one of yours, speed your discovery of new technologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpencerH
I completely agree. The idea that an enemy agent can walk into a General's tent in the middle of the General's army and call him out in a duel is a bit silly. I would prefer that the entire duel mechanic be eliminated and just allow the Gentleman to influence Tech progression and some Spying on the side.
I would also prefer that the gentleman stuck to influencing tech progression and industrial espionage. If I'm going to kill an enemy general, I'll do it honorably with an army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
I don't mind spies and espionage. But I would prefer a more fleshed out spying mechanic thats actually useful, and dispense with the assasination part all together.
Before everyone is in an uproar can we just see how it works in the game first. :dizzy2:
Duels were fought! There are a lot of agents besides Generals. For all we know you can refuse a challenge.
We know Rakes, Gentlemen, and Generals. We don’t know about Admirals, Ministers, and so forth.
:furious3:This reminds me of people complaining that some one bribed their General in Rome. They didn’t like it but it was a fact of life. Still they squealed enough that the costs became prohibitive and it carried on into M2TW. Nobles changed sides for money or other considerations but we took it out of the games.:smash:
Let’s just see what we get. At least we don’t need to worry about inquisitors this time out. :beam:
Think of the agents in sort of a short hand form of conspiracies to have someone discredited or even hanged for some made up charge, that happened!
Aaron Burr had three or more duels while he was in one office or another and ended up killing Alexander Hamilton. Decatur fought duels too. I am sure there are more examples. I am just not going to look them up.:duel:
As for assassinations, they took place, in this time and before. After the flight of the Earls Red Hugh O’Donnell died under misters circumstances, as did a number of others. It wasn’t just and English thing now was it?:tnt:
I'm not so much complaning as just stating my preferences. I'd rather gentleman didn't duel, but if they do it's nothing big really. I doubt it will hinder my enjoyment of the game.
Personally my wish is not that espionage is removed, simply that it is made more complex and more interesting. I want to carefully contrsuct networks of spies and slowly surround my enemies with men loyal to myself.
Also I am extremely pleased Inquisitors are't in this one. Burn my King will you? Then both his sons? Stupid inquisition.
RE: Ship combat
Quote:
all the more difficult by the need to manually reload cannons after firing at the enemy.
GAH!
No uproar here; I will deal with the system that I am provided with.:juggle2: What else can we do but speculate? :inquisitive:
Reloading cannons after firing is just part of the 18th century experience. If you want fancy automatic weapons with muliple shots then it's best to play something more modern :laugh4:
Seriously though I don't really mind having to reload the cannons, so long as it's just one button to click. If they make us go along the boat and reload each cannon individually.... I'll jump overboard.
Empire was previewed in a Finnish game magazine, and they had some information that I think is new. I posted it here because I didn't want to start a new thread.
Gentlemen can steal technology from foreign universities, but if a war starts they are kicked out of the country
Ministers can enhance the state or make it worse with their abilities. Monarchs can choose their own ministers, but republics must have elections. If all of your ministers are complete idiots, you can have early elections, but if you do it constantly it can lead to a civil war.
Artillery can fire direct fire or can prevent the enemies movements by firing in front of them. (barrage?)
The sea battles seem very arcade. The problems lie in sailing: You don't have to move your ships at all because you can just turn them around like cannon turrets. Even more agile ships can't avoid a broadside from a ship of the line. Upwind is not important because you can sail directly against it. Guys from CA said that they'll focus to sea battles most during the last parts of development and the UI is still completely unfinished.
heh - The sea looks great though - its alright if gameplay balancing and tweaking is done in February 2009 since they got till 2011 to fix it with the expansion - happy beta testing Empire players. I hope in the next TW title they put in aerial battles too. :laugh4:Quote:
The sea battles seem very arcade. The problems lie in sailing: You don't have to move your ships at all because you can just turn them around like cannon turrets. Even more agile ships can't avoid a broadside from a ship of the line. Upwind is not important because you can sail directly against it. Guys from CA said that they'll focus to sea battles most during the last parts of development and the UI is still completely unfinished.
Thanks for the info King of Finland
!it burnsus!
Oh I think you would get tired of it trying to handle up to 20 ships and still have to think of such details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
But no need to panic DA, reloading will be done automatically. There is a fire/broadside button to handle situations when you want to control exactly when to fire: perfect raking position etc.
CBR
You don't have to reload cannons automatically after firing, they do of course automatically reload just like in previous games.
Thanks Jack, I am sure I would get very tired of trying to remember; and many times forgetting; to reload my ship guns.
I certainly don't expect nor desire that the naval battles will be extremely accurately portrayed, but I hope that CA doeasn't go overboard by making it extremely easy and arcade-like. I am a bit concerned by the ease and speed of immoble ships turning that I saw in a video.
Thanks Jack, it's nice to hear the official word.
I think CA are going in the right direction by keeping naval battles reasonably simple.
Actual naval battles of the time would be extremely boring to play. Several days of sailing and trying to out manouvre an opponent? No thanks.
It could go wrong if it gets a little too arcadey though. It would be nice if there was a 'realism mode' option we could tick to force ships to have to tack to sail against the wind, and similar things.
I've decided that if I somehow hate ship combat, I can just automanage it. I technically wouldn't have lost anything that the other TW games had. Don't get me wrong, I'd still love to conquer the seas (personally).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnMon
I agree, I have never been a big boat guy anyway so I will have no problem if Naval combat is a bit messed up.
Noooooooooo! You'll give CA excuses! Can't you at least pretend to be bothered until the game comes out? After it's out I don't care if you mod naval combat out entirely, so long as those of us who want it get something good. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
You're missing out on a lot though if you don't play the naval battles. Naval combat is extremely interesting once it gets to the actual ship to ship fighting. Give it a try and you might appreciate it more than you think. (I like boats)
I doubt they have taken out the auto resolve feature but you had best have an idea of what the game rates as the super units, as always, before you use it.
True. I hate how some random boats could just decimate my entire navy. It's like, would 6 cogs really deal me a devastating defeat, when I have 6 gun holks? >.<Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Beane
What I meant to say was that if CA screws up the Naval Combat I will never ever buy another TW game again ever.:furious3:
Dont get me started on those damn pirates :angryg:Quote:
Originally Posted by ConnMon
Pirates were rather lame. I hope pirates this time are realistc. I was perfectly fine with the attacks but in a game like rome, where i'm attacked 5 times a turn by 500 ship armada's of pirates, got a little ridiculous.
Honestly in naval combat I look most forward to the boarding action. Mostly because I like melee combat alot :2thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Finland
From whats been mentioned in another thread, it seems likely that the review was played with the naval movement set on "computer control". IIRC CA has said there is a more realistic mode where such irregularities wont happen.
Thinking out loud :stupido2:
From what I understand windward and leeward approaches were fundamental to the tactics of the English and French navies respectively. The former having more ships could afford to be more aggressive (in on the wind), and the later always wanting to have a quick out to “save the boat” if things didn’t go well (take to the wind).
Weather and ocean current factors would be important to an Admiral’s decision making, but not a total limiting factor. If he needed a ship (or line of ships) to be at a certain position, that position was assigned. It then became the ships Captain’s responsibility to make it happen. In my estimation, having to tack against the wind is as much micromanagement as having to reload cannon. I think it can be safely delegated :captain:
Added: Although, I would like to see the tacking taking place (albeit automatic), and have to consider in the extra time involved in coordinating actions. We’ll see!
The problem we have is that CA have actually stated tacking won't be handled by the A.I. They tried auto tack and apparently it annoyed inexperienced players with no idea how ships work, so they took it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomisama
Basically if you want your ships to tack then you have to do it yourself, for all 20 of them.
I think pirates this time will be more realistic, we know a lot more about them for one thing.
What with all the skull and crossbones at least they will have style :P
Could you explain that a little for me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methuselah