Empire: Incomplete?

Don't take me wrong with this.
I've been playing Empire and absolutely loving it.
It just feels like; it's not the real thing, but a beta.

First Off. Scenario Battles.
Am I the only one who found it strange there was only one additional battle under scenarios that wasn't in the demo (to a total of 3)?
I hope this will be furthered in a Patch, and not a bunch of DLC that we'll have to pay for.
(note: I do want other kinds of DLC to arrive)

Multiplayer Ladder.
We have he stats, but no ladder just yet.
Hopefully added in the near future.

Passive AI.
The enemy don't seem to do much in 20 turns other than attack one of your fleets and attack some troops you have outside their capital.
They don't seem interested in anything at all.
Hopefully fixed in a patch.


I know there are other things, but I won't talk about them all.
I'm just wondering if anyone else feels this way?
Feel free to add anything else you deem similar!

(Please remember I'm enjoying Empire as much if not more as any other TW title so far). :2thumbsup:

What difficulty are you on?

I don't think it is unfinished, but needs patching. I don't even play scenario battles ever, so that leaves the MP ladder and AI.

I thought the AI was very challenging, so I guess thats out.

As far as the AI is concerned, I think its much more realistic. Ive noticed that even on hard, your neighbors only engage in a land war if provoked (like in history), while the seas are always an ongoing war zone (like in history). Unlike in the time periods covered in previous titles, once you had the formations of states and sovereign borders, the status quo will be maintained, reinforced by diplomatic alliances. If the AI kept throwing stack after stack at my home regions from all directions like in Rome, it would not make sense at all for this time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

What difficulty are you on?

I don't think it is unfinished, but needs patching. I don't even play scenario battles ever, so that leaves the MP ladder and AI.

I thought the AI was very challenging, so I guess thats out.

---

Was M/M as Great Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Relic

Was M/M as Great Britain.

---

Perhaps you're used to Medieval 2 where every faction attacks you within 20 turns?

Empire was intended to be much more realistic. You shouldn't be steamrolling every neighbor around you and every neighbor shouldn't be attacking you.

This is the era when modern diplomacy happened. Wars happened less frequently, but they lasted longer, and were more punishing as well. Countries had set policies (E.g. UK keeping the balance of power on the continent), and if you failed to check out the diplomacy of a country before attacking it, expect unforseen consequences.

Regarding scenario battles, IIRC CA stated at one point that they would not be including Historical Battles at all this time around, so having even one there (plus the demo battles) is a bonus.

It seems like a relatively straightforward thing to add as DLC, since I get the impression that most players don't play them.

Mind if I ask what battle it is? Some of us are still waiting for our copies to arrive you see. ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PBI

Mind if I ask what battle it is? Some of us are still waiting for our copies to arrive you see. ~:mecry:

---

I can't be bothered to clarify this just yet, (but I'll PM you the name when I go back on).
It's another Sea battle, 1v1 is all I can remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtillerySmoke

Perhaps you're used to Medieval 2 where every faction attacks you within 20 turns?

---

Actually I have/played ever single total war game except for Medieval 2 and Kingdoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Relic

Was M/M as Great Britain.

---

If you step up difficulty, AI wont be anywhere near as passive from what I have seen.

Battle for Pourta Nouvo or something like that.

Its in the demo, its just hidden.

I'm glad they delayed this a month if it's this rough around the edges NOW.
I'd hate to see what the version they had a month ago looked like :gah:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I'm glad they delayed this a month if it's this rough around the edges NOW.
I'd hate to see what the version they had a month ago looked like :gah:

---

LOL:laugh4:

I actually dont think that Empires is bad at all. The only thing that was incomplete was shipping the game with a paper thin manual. Honestly, I've seen games with half the depth ship with manuals or pdfs of over 100 pages. I hope the stategy guide is not as worthless as it was for previos TW games.:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaiseric

LOL:laugh4:

I actually dont think that Empires is bad at all. The only thing that was incomplete was shipping the game with a paper thin manual. Honestly, I've seen games with half the depth ship with manuals or pdfs of over 100 pages. I hope the stategy guide is not as worthless as it was for previos TW games.:yes:

---

I suppose I'm just a bit dissapointed with the unit roster. I mean, not only does all the western factions have the same generic 'Line Infantry' (except France, for whatever reason), but they all wear the same uniforms!

I mean, come on, I'm pretty sure people in Georgia didn't even know what a tricorn WAS at this period in time. It's silly. It's understandable in the medieval period that you can make militia units more or less generic, given that what your average peasant wore didn't really vary a whole lot ("Lets see, should I wear my summer rags, or my winter rags?"), but c'mon CA. A bit of effort would be nice. You could have at least given the British bearskins, since they seem to have had the most effort put into their faction in terms of units.

They've got like, five unique units, not counting the ones from the Special Forces version. The Russians only get Cossacks. This makes me a sad geisha :sadg:

Re: line infantry: is Austrian line infantry supposed to be bigger than everyone else's?

Some flair may have been nice if nothing else for the sake of flair.

I'm sure they wanted to keep the imagery of redcoat, and bluecoats and whatever, but in reality I think people would have preferred some differrent units if only by looks.

I'm sure they all use the same weapons and dress similiar, but something as simple as the units of germany carrying flasks of powder, and the russians wearing fuzzy hats, would probably been enough. They could have just called them, some german name and some russian name.

Again, would it have been historic? probably not.

Would it have been more amusing and fun to see ona screen? Probably.:2thumbsup:

Here's hoping for a expansion or mod as I highly doubt they will do this in a patch.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old school tricorn 17th century line formation look as much as next guy, but kinda dull to see units look the same for hundred years, even if it is historic.

To be fair, all TW games look incomplete when compaired to the better mods out there. That's just how it is.

Well, I don't ever think they are incomplete, but I do think there are always new ways to add more exciting things :)

I agree. Vanilla version of Empires Total War.....$50. Just thinking about all the great mods that will come with it......priceless.

I will pay $50 for a vanilla version of a total war game, even without the flaire and polish, so long as its stable, the engine works, and its not too buggy. Some of you may think that this game is incomplete, but think of all the great new features and the improvements ETW adds from the previous TW games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaiseric

I agree. Vanilla version of Empires Total War.....$50. Just thinking about all the great mods that will come with it......priceless.

I will pay $50 for a vanilla version of a total war game, even without the flaire and polish, so long as its stable, the engine works, and its not too buggy. Some of you may think that this game is incomplete, but think of all the great new features and the improvements ETW adds from the previous TW games.

---

There we have it, the Total War community is so great because of its MOD community, EB turned RTW into the single best Game ever.

I expect similar results from the MOD squads of Empire.

Quote:

---

You could have at least given the British bearskins…

---

Oh! Oh! Sheogorath


What ever were you thinking…If memory serves the Brits didn’t use Bearskins until they beat the French units that wore them.:inquisitive:

__________________________________________________________

As to Mods, thus far we are still waiting for someone to unpack everything. Have you seen how much they are struggling to even get little things done.

So far more moddable has not meant anything. More can be modded but it has not proved easy to get there.:sweatdrop:


I so want to get into those minor factions!:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

As to Mods, thus far we are still waiting for someone to unpack everything. Have you seen how much they are struggling to even get little things done.

---

Even after our PM conversation you still get it wrong :grin2: Its ok ~:pat:

We have it unpacked, we just can't read these files.

We can edit unit stats, but it aint easy, its quite a lot of work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I suppose I'm just a bit dissapointed with the unit roster. I mean, not only does all the western factions have the same generic 'Line Infantry' (except France, for whatever reason), but they all wear the same uniforms!

---

Back in my day we played Shogun total war were all the factions had the same units and we were happy dam it!


Oh and this place was all fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Oh! Oh! Sheogorath


What ever were you thinking…If memory serves the Brits didn’t use Bearskins until they beat the French units that wore them.:inquisitive:

---

This is probably true, but I'd rather have my early units wearing bearskins than my late units in tailed coats and tricorn hats :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zerg

Back in my day we played Shogun total war were all the factions had the same units and we were happy dam it!


Oh and this place was all fields.

---

And everybody said "Ryokai!" in delicious 8-bit sound too :tongueg:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I mean, not only does all the western factions have the same generic 'Line Infantry' (except France, for whatever reason), but they all wear the same uniforms!

---

https://i257.photobucket.com/albums/...ights_info.jpg

"Hello, my name is Dismounted Feudal Knight. I am the same generic infantry that all western factions have, and I wear the same uniform no matter who I'm working for! Only there's no tech tree to upgrade me with, so I'm even more boring."

When it comes to unit rosters, Total War isn't exactly Starcraft. Never has been, never will be. I guess that's just how it goes. ~:(

I'd like to see someone attempt to Zerg Rush a country with Peasants....

Starcraft? Really? Someone is a fair bit behind the current sleu of RTS's, about a decade behind :laugh4::laugh4:

That said, I think tw has plenty of color and flair, along with faction differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polemists

Starcraft? Really? Someone is a fair bit behind the current sleu of RTS's, about a decade behind

---

Hmm yes, how dare I reference a game with diverse units to illustrate a point about unit diversity. Back to my cave to try and invent fire.

My point is that factions having units in common is a Total War staple. Rome had it's similar factions divided into cultures (Romans factions had legions, Greeks had phalanxes, barbarians had warbands). ME2 had it's western knights and eastern horse archers.

Now, we have line infantry, and it's suddenly a big deal. Why?

I think CA had some problems meeting the launch dealine (as all software developers do), having spent the better part of the last two days playing I've found bugs, most of which I can live with. But being anal attentive to detail, I keep seeing information messages that are outright wrong.

http://www.hum.aau.dk/~keb03/celcius_error.JPG

I mean, seriously, how difficult is it to type up the definition of celcius correctly, and there are loads of factual mistakes like that.

Oh yes, Starcraft with it's blue space marines and orange fire space marines, the differences were endless :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: No game before it had ever done Space marines before :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: (Sorry had to, GW fan club go)


In other news,

I still think the game has alot of potential. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belid Hagen

I think CA had some problems meeting the launch dealine (as all software developers do), having spent the better part of the last two days playing I've found bugs, most of which I can live with. But being anal attentive to detail, I keep seeing information messages that are outright wrong.

http://www.hum.aau.dk/~keb03/celcius_error.JPG

I mean, seriously, how difficult is it to type up the definition of celcius correctly, and there are loads of factual mistakes like that.

---

Actually that was the original scale, before it got reversed.

Quote:

---

In 1742 Swedish astronomer Anders Celsius (1701–1744) created a "reversed" version of the modern Celsius temperature scale whereby zero represented the boiling point of water and one hundred represented the freezing point of water.

---

Thats from Wikipedia by the way, but I've seen that fact pop up in more reliable places.

I had a feeling it was like that then got reversed.

CA did their homework :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malkut

"Hello, my name is Dismounted Feudal Knight. I am the same generic infantry that all western factions have, and I wear the same uniform no matter who I'm working for! Only there's no tech tree to upgrade me with, so I'm even more boring."

When it comes to unit rosters, Total War isn't exactly Starcraft. Never has been, never will be. I guess that's just how it goes. ~:(

---

There's one big difference between Total War games and Blizzard games, one tries to be historically realistic(to an extent anyway) and fun, the other just wants to be fun. Besides CA spent so much time implementing new units and features that they just didn't have the time for it. I mean you really can't compare Starcraft or Warcraft 3's AI to Total War. In Craft games the AI just needs to collect resources, build units, and attack. In Total War games the AI needs to take into account many factors regarding enemy troop types, weather, and terrain. Besides if there wasn't diversity in games like Starcraft or Warcraft.... would people play the game? In ETW nations are different based on what they start with and where they are, among other things.

argh. DAMN YOU CA, now i have to recheck all the "mistakes" to see if they actually were. OCD is a evil mistress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazyviking03

As far as the AI is concerned, I think its much more realistic. Ive noticed that even on hard, your neighbors only engage in a land war if provoked (like in history), while the seas are always an ongoing war zone (like in history). Unlike in the time periods covered in previous titles, once you had the formations of states and sovereign borders, the status quo will be maintained, reinforced by diplomatic alliances. If the AI kept throwing stack after stack at my home regions from all directions like in Rome, it would not make sense at all for this time period.

---

Well, the problem is, while the AI does not steamroll you, it's much too easy to steamroll them. I played Maratha on VH/VH and in 1728 I am six provinces away from meeting the victory conditions for the long campaign. The military campaign AI is either a programming failure or unfinished (well, I hope it's the latter).

The following things I don't like:
- passive AI
- generic units and wrong combat balance
- primitive traits/ancillaries system
- a general lack of variety
That said, it is the best vanilla TW since Rome.

About the AI: don't get me wrong, it's supposed to be a century where diplomatic struggle became much more important, but I haven't seen it. If there was active diplomacy, with some nations forming coalitions and fighting someone else (even if it's only me), I would've been satisfied. Right now, the only nations that fight are those which have a quarrel from the very beginning (Russia/Ottomans, Danemark/Sweden, Poland/Austria, Mughal/Maratha, etc.). It felt like everyone died, since there weren't any alliance messages or the like. No diplomatic action (except sometimes a Nation Destroyed message) for the whole campaign. That was on M/M by the way, I'm not sure if it difficulty changes something here, but I will start an England VH/M campaign later.

it's not more bugged and unbalanced than the previous games
and it can't be possibly worse than that big lazy RTW mod called Medieval 2. no way.

Compared to RTW on release ETW has thus far been joyously playable and bug free; for myself at any rate. Compared to M2TW it's a shining beacon of gaming excellence.

However the Campaign AI could certainly do with some more aggression at times, though not always. (As evidenced by my having to refight the latter, more desperate, stages of the Seven Years War in my First Prussian game.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister V

The following things I don't like:
- passive AI
- generic units and wrong combat balance
- primitive traits/ancillaries system
- a general lack of variety
That said, it is the best vanilla TW since Rome.

About the AI: don't get me wrong, it's supposed to be a century where diplomatic struggle became much more important, but I haven't seen it. If there was active diplomacy, with some nations forming coalitions and fighting someone else (even if it's only me), I would've been satisfied. Right now, the only nations that fight are those which have a quarrel from the very beginning (Russia/Ottomans, Danemark/Sweden, Poland/Austria, Mughal/Maratha, etc.). It felt like everyone died, since there weren't any alliance messages or the like. No diplomatic action (except sometimes a Nation Destroyed message) for the whole campaign. That was on M/M by the way, I'm not sure if it difficulty changes something here, but I will start an England VH/M campaign later.

---

lack of variety???
look at some pictures of battles back then. everyone pretty much wore the same things and ued the same weapons.
if anything RTW lacked variety

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malkut

https://i257.photobucket.com/albums/...ights_info.jpg

"Hello, my name is Dismounted Feudal Knight. I am the same generic infantry that all western factions have, and I wear the same uniform no matter who I'm working for! Only there's no tech tree to upgrade me with, so I'm even more boring."

When it comes to unit rosters, Total War isn't exactly Starcraft. Never has been, never will be. I guess that's just how it goes. ~:(

---

Very on point.

(Dismounted) Feudal Knights
(Dismounted) Chivalric Knights
Feudal/Chivalric Men-At-Arms
Sergeants/Armored Sergeants
Mailed Knights
Peasant Archers

etc. etc. etc.

M2 did have noticably more unique units in the late era, but almost all the Euro powers were still 90% carbon copies of eachother.

Yesterday browsing through the late era unit rosters, there only seems to be a couple factions that are quite generic: United Provinces, Sweden, Prussia. But even their "copy" units have different stats, plus United Provinces gets access to many colonial units in America and India (probably the case too with Sweden and Prussia if you make it that far).

England has a nice set of units, France has many unique units too. Spain too IIRC, U.S., Austria, Russia. Ottomans are totally unique, as are the Marathas.

Come to think of it, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that ETW's unit roster is generic at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazyviking03

As far as the AI is concerned, I think its much more realistic. Ive noticed that even on hard, your neighbors only engage in a land war if provoked (like in history), .

---

Not in my experience, I've had Spain attack Glasgow and I'm playing on medium :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

Very on point.

(Dismounted) Feudal Knights
(Dismounted) Chivalric Knights
Feudal/Chivalric Men-At-Arms
Sergeants/Armored Sergeants
Mailed Knights
Peasant Archers

etc. etc. etc.

M2 did have noticably more unique units in the late era, but almost all the Euro powers were still 90% carbon copies of eachother.

Yesterday browsing through the late era unit rosters, there only seems to be a couple factions that are quite generic: United Provinces, Sweden, Prussia. But even their "copy" units have different stats, plus United Provinces gets access to many colonial units in America and India (probably the case too with Sweden and Prussia if you make it that far).

England has a nice set of units, France has many unique units too. Spain too IIRC, U.S., Austria, Russia. Ottomans are totally unique, as are the Marathas.

Come to think of it, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that ETW's unit roster is generic at all.

---

From what I've heard though, it would be nice if the generic infantry had different uniforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belid Hagen

I mean, seriously, how difficult is it to type up the definition of celcius correctly, and there are loads of factual mistakes like that.

---

I remember thinking when I read this that a horde of people would probably go and complain to CA about bugs...
Ill second the other fellow by the way, I read it in Bill Bryson's 'A short history of nearly everything' (though admittedly thats probably less reliable than wiki)

I read it in Horrible Science as well (Even though that's probably less likely than both of them)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

From what I've heard though, it would be nice if the generic infantry had different uniforms.

---

To be honest it seems to me like European/American uniforms were pretty standard in this time, but with different colors between the nations of course. Garish uniform colors and designs didn't really show theirself until the Napoleonic era.

They all basically wear similar jackets, pants and hats, with the white "belt" things crossing eachother over the torso (making an X). Just searching for uniforms on google, it looks like just color swapping British/U.S.-type uniforms from the period is pretty accurate.

The state of the unit roster is simply because that's the way the period was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

lack of variety???
look at some pictures of battles back then. everyone pretty much wore the same things and ued the same weapons.
if anything RTW lacked variety

---

Compare the unit rosters of ETW and EB. That's what I mean by "variety". Sure, no one says the units were drastically different, but they could at least have different models and more unique stats, as well as truly unique units. As it is, the only difference is colour (and minor stat variations, apparently). Where is the splendour of the different infantry and cavalry leib guard regiments (and other elite units)?
If you think I'm being picky, I'm just pointing out things that they could've done better (being professional developers and having the example of EB and other community mods).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister V

Compare the unit rosters of ETW and EB. That's what I mean by "variety". Sure, no one says the units were drastically different, but they could at least have different models and more unique stats, as well as truly unique units. As it is, the only difference is colour (and minor stat variations, apparently). Where is the splendour of the different infantry and cavalry leib guard regiments (and other elite units)?
If you think I'm being picky, I'm just pointing out things that they could've done better (being professional developers and having the example of EB and other community mods).

---

To be fair to CA modders don't have to come up with their engine and their game mechanics from scratch. They therefore have a lot more time to work on models and textures and can come up with greater variety.

I wish CA had added in differently uniformed regiments and more variation. I understand why they didn't however. Mods ar eusually good for adding in variety, and I'm sure that we will see some excellent mods that do just that :2thumbsup:.

My guess it that civilisations that existed in ancient times were much more isolated from each other and, therefore, their military practices evolved separately and uniquely. This is why in early periods, armies had rather different types of troop.

You can also see what happens when one civilisation spreads its culture -- following Alexander's campaign, other countries started using some kind of phalanx.

By the 18th century, European countries were much less isolated. Due to the cultural ties, their military started looking similar to each other.

Take Peter the Great, for example. His reform of the Russian army was influenced by the Prussian military. He even dressed them similarly.