This dutch site just posted info on the new Total Ware game! Empire: Total War. There will be naval battles! I will post a translation as soon as possible.
http://www.gamer.nl/doc/41280
EDIT: There are 2 screenshots of naval battles
Printable View
This dutch site just posted info on the new Total Ware game! Empire: Total War. There will be naval battles! I will post a translation as soon as possible.
http://www.gamer.nl/doc/41280
EDIT: There are 2 screenshots of naval battles
Now that I see the article you linked to, I don't think I need to translate anymore. If anyone wants the translation anyway, please ask.
Oh My!
Trireme Battles here we come for EB3 :yes:
Sounds like a revolution, and an interesting period, indeed... But there is too little info to judge or predict anything right now...
I think ETW will be even harder to mod since it's mostly based on long range warfare, not hand to hand as RTW and MTW2 are. But I agree it's to early to know these things already.
Hope they keep the old formations, otherwise EB3 is going to have a hard time there.
It's a new engine so I doubt they will. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Sadly, I will have to agree with you Trax - the formations were only left in M2:TW due to it being on the same engine as Rome. It's too early to gather any knowledge about the modability from the previews though, so let's just hope for the best.
BTW, the .Org has opened up a forum for E:TW. You can find this new residence here.
Yeah I agree there. It would be the extreme of wishful thinking to even presume they might be in.
But that's not everything: to use the naval battles properly, EB would have to dump the Engine delivered formations and insert its own. (Diekplous etc.) Just how much chance of happening does that have?
Anyway, let's not worry about EB3 when there hasn't been even a single EB2 release yet.
Well, I think it's awesome none the less.
Wow it sounds awesome. The whole fighting armies on faraway lands looks cool. However, EB will always be on my computer, the historical research present is just so cool :2thumbsup:
Indeed.Quote:
Hope they keep the old formations, otherwise EB3 is going to have a hard time there.
The article says that the period starts with 'sharpened sticks & swords' & I think that there should be at least some historical justification for including some sword & pike units, thus the formations/animations.
Swedish army had considerable amount of pikemen even in the Great Northern War, so there is a slight chance that we will see a special pike formation.
True. Having buildings on the battle field that can be strategically used (apart from the blunt wall & tower taking in assaults); and having naval battles should make for some pretty exciting game. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shigawire
Well, while the news of a new total war game is always welcome, I'm worrying a bit.
EB is at 0.9. EB2 isn't even started (being modded, that is). And now there's a new game out? I wonder as to the reaction of the EB team members.
My first question was "what will this mean for EB?", but it's really impossible to say at this stage, I'd imagine, since all we can do is speculate what the engine will and will not do. Hopefully EB members won't be discouraged by the fact that MTW2 is "obsolete".
Still, it's a bigger problem for the Lordz since they now have more direct competition. I'm sure they'll continue their thing, though.
Probably the same as their reaction to M2:TW, I wager...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warmaster Horus
E:TW won't come out unit AT LEAST a year from now. And once it comes out, it will be another year woth of patches and updates to make the game worth a darn.
By that time, EB will be LONG complete, EB2 will be in its later beta versions like .8 or something, and modding of the new game will start to be planned.
There is something I gotta say:
EB is going to be around for a LONG TIME. And I will be here lurking in the forums telling new guys:
-"the Gaestae are NOT overpwered"
-"Lorica Segmentata (sp) will not be in EB because it falls outside EBs timeframe."
---"Stop arguing which is better Segmentata (sp) or mail!!"
-"Attack the AI and stop complaining about the AI spamming armies"
-"The Economy is FINE, learn to manage it"
-"recommended settings are Vh/M, its too easy for me, but its perfect for roleplaying"
-"READ THE FAQs!!"
fun times ahead fellas :yes:
Being a relative "noob" to the total war series ( never played Shogun or MTW ) it seems to me that titles like RTW became infinitely more attractive once the big "mod teams" i.e..RTR & EB started releasing full conversions.
Mods like EB have simply transform RTW to a completely new experience. Prior to that, i didn't really enjoy RTW either. I just didn't find steamrolling all the other half-ass factions with my uber Romans enjoyable. I have MTW2 and simply don't care for it yet. I suspect eventually i will enjoy MTW2 as well but not until teams like EB start releasing full conversions to it. I also suspect i will have the same feeling about ETW. So if it comes out next year, i'll probably start enjoying it 2,3 or 4 years down the road when the modders start exploiting the title's modding capabilities ( presuming this will be possible to a great extent of course). I'll probably just be beginning to enjoy MTW2 by then with EB2. As a poster more or less said over at TWC in the ETW announcement thread over there; it seems like CA relies too much on modders to bring out the full capabilities of titles they release. I'm not saying this is done on purpose or that they actually do rely on modders for anything. It just seems to me it takes the modding community to add that final polish to the title sort of speak. At least in my opinion for RTW this holds true and hopefully for MTW2 it will hold true as well. So i'll probably get excited about ETW in about 4 yrs if the current pattern holds true. If not i'll still have EB1 (RTW) and hopefully EB2 (MTW2) to keep my warmongering appetite satisfied.:yes:
i dont like the era and only hope it'll deliver an opportunity to create Persian- Greek wars mod that would properly represent naval battles. you could have Salamis as a historical battle.
for me, the next TW game set in classical era (let it be RTW2) would be a better news.
only thing I look forward to is the Native Americans in the War of 1812 and the Sepoy rebellion...
but folks, here comes the guns... no matter how skilled and badass the warrior, he ain't dodging bullets
it is the beginning of the end folks, enjoy while native fiercely resist the Imperialism of western powers... soon it won't be man vs. man, it'll be rockets, nukes, bullets, etc. vs. likewise
i dunno, something about skilled warriors killing each other is just more appealing than guns shooting each other from miles away, not that they aren't skilled or trained or brave... props to the soldiers of the modern day, but its just more... fair? back then?
whatever, we'll see how ETW will be
http://www.totalwar.com/index.html?p...l&nav=/en/6/8/
More news.
Empire: Total War contains a revolutionised Total War campaign spanning 3 continents.
It any luck the barrer of 199 region will by crosse mabe this time there will by 299, or better 399 :idea2: :idea2:
We will just see, I reckon.
Anyhow; I still think I can have some pretty good fun with naval battles and the new, more dynamic battle fields - even if it's a classic Holywood/Comic style experience. After all, I did enjoy RTW vanilla the first time; enjoyed RTW XGM the second time; and now enjoy RTW EB style.
Yeah great DE HOLLANDERS are going conquer the world:smash: from the seas wooden shoes for every one
You know what they about us wooden shoes , wooden head, wooden listen:wall:
I suggest the Team to not waste their time with M2TW and skip it ,instead let EB2 be based on E:TW engine.
I haven't even bought M2:TW yet. E:TW will likely come after a new computer, from the sounds of things. Hell, my current computer will have enough time dealing with M2:TW. Someone, please tell them to slow down. I'm not ready for a new TW yet.
War will never be fair. Never has, never will.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuKulzA
I think the word you are looking for is "impersonal".
Not just fair, it was more humane. Today, war IS total. War in today's paradigm kills millions. Military and civilian life is so intertwined, as the military often share civilian infrastructure and power grids. Attacking the military often means attacking the civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuKulzA
The humane thing is always to avoid civilian casualties. That threshold was crossed once states invented ways to wage siege warfare - either slowly by starving cities, forcing mothers to eat their children as Assyria used to brag about, or the quick way that was invented by Assyria during the 9th century BC (the battering ram was one such invention).
In ancient times, siege warfare was the only time when Total War reached the civilian population. Otherwise, the pitched battles were always waged on vast plains - sparing civilians the carnage. Today, Urban warfare is becoming more the norm. Especially in a world of asymmetric warfare where the weak must find cunning ways to strike back. A war today is the great mother of all subsequent offspring horrors. The Iraq war for example, has set in motion devastating secondary and tertiary effects, having caused the deaths to have risen to 1 million (1`018`253) Iraqis thus far. And that is the result from the most "benevolent" aggressor ("best case scenario") - and the majority of casualties are not directly due to the occupier, but rather indirectly through secondary and tertiary effects (like clumsily opening a bee's nest to get honey). Imagine if a country with an overtly sinister/amoral human rights philosophy invaded Iraq for some reason, such as Russia or China. The number of casualties might have been far higher. Take the example of when Baghdad was invaded by another aggressor, the Mongol horde, the result was far more grizzly as 99.99% of the entire population of Baghdad was allegedly massacred.
In ancient times, siege warfare although cruel it was, was still not at the level that Total War has reached today. It got worse as the methods of warfare "advanced."
Meh! At the end of the day, nothing beats two suits of armor reeking of testosterone and sweat, clubbering each other with swords and armor.. :laugh4:
Actually, the preview that I read explained clearly that there will be no more tiles on the campaign map. Just freeform terrain, and free army movement. I have no idea how it works in practice, we'll have to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepper
But no tiles means no limit. Perhaps a city-limit?
I look forward to this, though we might expect something absurd in the history department. Perhaps the Zulus are made exaggeratedly powerful?
Things of that nature concern me..
But the overall feature list is still very impressive.
Can't wait for ETW! I always wanted to play a game like EB set up in the 18th century. It'll be just awesome.
:2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
I doubt that EB2 will skip M2TW and go to the new Total War. M2TW has the same engine as RTW and many things can be ported or converted. Most likely, the new engine will require a complete restart of everything, including learning a completely new system.
Shigawire - you exlained it quite well
dude, I hear yaQuote:
Originally Posted by Bootsiuv
Exactly, you don't often look the guy in the eyes and have the guts to slice his face off in the most modern warfareQuote:
Originally Posted by EdwardL
glad to have my words translated into more concise and understanding forms
ya'll know what I mean now :laugh4:
I don't what u guys are talking about,:dizzy2: war was hell then, it is hell now, it will be hell tomorrow.
moving on....
This new TW game will take at least 2 years to come out (not only a lot of work has to yet to be done, but the technology to run it has to become affortable. It will be stupid to release a new game after spending a LOT of $$, and only have a few thousands of people buying it.)
Also, the tranfer form EB to EB2 will be a lot easier than it was creating EB. This is due to the game engine being the same, most of the research being already done, etc. But now, EB3 will be harder, but it is still doable. Plus CA knows that people are buying their games to play the mods so they will make sure modding is easy. Wasn't it easier to mod RTW compared to MTW or STW??????
This new TW.... will kick ass. It is a shame that it will most likely be almost 100% western oriented, but then again you never know CA has being know to add "fantasy units"......
One thing is for DARN SURE!!!
I will play the USA and do some REAL butt kicking.
:thrasher:
(I will wait for at least a couple of patches to come out before I buy the game though)
I just cross my fingers and hope they will put some effort into diplomacy and battle/campaign AI this time for a change; if it is another case of "Brain Dead:TW" I will never bother buying it, that's for sure.
Some promising statements:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...&mode=previews
Quote:
You'll be able to conduct a wide range of naval warfare tactics, including boarding enemy vessels.
Quote:
Land battles will introduce new features, such as the ability to garrison men in buildings. They'll also introduce the use of cover, such as walls, which is required for the introduction of rifle combat.
Quote:
There will still be cavalry charges and melee combat in the form of bayonet charges as well.
This may be interesting, but I hope it can be turned off when more control is needed.Quote:
Even better, the designers realized that players were spending too much time building units and then marching them around the map just to merge into a single army. So now you'll be able to designate a general to be the nucleus of an army, and new units will assemble around him. Thus, a lot of tedious micromanagement is easily eliminated.
For me the by far most important thing about the not yet revealed stuff is whether the game is easily moddable to fix the pre-shipped unit stats (for battle speed and balance and toning down of big explosion-causing weapons), and replacing unit roosters with more historically accurate ones, and add some way of incorporating low supply in foreign land (as EB did, or to an even greater effect if the core engine can give non-battle losses for it as well).
Sounds pretty awesome, it will probably crush Napoleon TW underfoot. Yet i hope they release it a little more polished this time.... hell they should give everyone on this forum a chance to beta test it and review it before release I bet we would make it a damn good game :idea2:
But CA wouldn't sell as much, would it?
sure they'd, they could make the beta test time limited ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Actually CA would have sold a LOT more. Take a look at Blizzard, they take their time to publish a game after they anounce it. Hell Starcraft Ghost took so long that the new XBox 360 came out, and Blizzard had to drop the project since they were making it for the 1st XBox. WWIII took a while too, and so did WOW. And how many copies has Blizzard sold?????? Millions!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
The feeling I am getting is that CA has gotten a little lazy with the details. If you look at the video "Making of Total War" (is on youtube). The guy explains that they stopped doing "cut scenes" after STW because they were too much work, and they also stopped doing "Periods of time" (u know, Early Medieval, Middle, and Late)after MTW becasue they were too much work too. And we all know the AI has gotten a little dumber after each release.
CA is making a lot of improvement in some game areas, but is dropping the ball on others.
I agree with NeoSpartan on the Blizzard games example... they work hard and their games are good and are still played and sought after for a long time (just look at Starcraft, and SC2 will be out sometime)
:yes:
Yeah improvements mostly on flashy stuff and graphics but dropping a lot about realism and AI intellect :wall:
I played STW lately and I can't shake the feeling of wonder I had when I caught sight of the enemy army deployed on the hill waiting for me and then the feeling of "unbelievabliness" when at least a third of his troops smashed into the side of my right wing, having been concealed in woods during all my advance :smash:
Guess I had become lazy playing dumb AI :2thumbsup:
As insane as it sounds, I had the same experience when I started up S:TW some time ago. It's bizarre to think the AI has not improved all those years, no its quality has actually declined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriote
Anyway, this game looks awesome. I hope they put the Netherlands (would be the Republic of the United Netherlands then, I think) in, even though our game was pretty much over by the end of the 17th century. Still, TW games make for great 'what-if' experiences...
But personally I'm more looking forward to EB2, as my computer won't be able to run E:TW anyway and I don't do an Ancient History major for nothing, eh?
The Netherlands were mostly powerful before and after the time frame. And conquest total-war style only became a major issue 1870-ish onward (at least for the The Kingdom of the Netherlands). With the Netherlands becoming one of the three chief Imperialist powers; as the English more or less agreed to allow the Netherlands control over Indonesia.
Oh I think they let us because they where to scared we kicked they're "bottoms":laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
But thanks for the info
Uhm... the British Empire more or less dominated the world after the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, the Netherlands had to ask before getting their former possesions on Java back - and if it had been up to Thomas Raffles (the English governor after the island had been seized by the British) they sure hadn't got it back.
Partially to spite the Dutch, Thomas Raffles secretly founded the city of Singapore - which proved to be a fierce competitor in all depot trade in South East Asia. (And still is today.)
It's not so much a decline in AI as a lot of features being added or changed which the AI isn't rewritten to use as effectively, I think. The STW/MTW battle AI was acceptable. Then RTW introduced a new combat system which the AI doesn't handle well at all, charging generals for instance worked in STW/MTW as they were freaking tanks but they will die in any prolonged melee in RTW as any unit will score a lucky hit sometime. But other cavalry also charges hours before the infantry arrives and is destroyed before the real battle begins, this is indeed a decline in AI :thumbsdown:. Especially bad since anvil+hammer tactics wins the day extremely quickly due to the line crumbling.
Extremely powerful retraining was added, which the AI doesn't use. Morale-affecting units such as druids are introduced, the AI seems oblivious to it. Missile troops are suddenly accurate and powerful, but the AI doesn't choose its targets well. Fleeing troops are suddenly incapable of fighting at all and will be mowed down extremely quickly (you needed to watch out in STW or the routers would kill those of your men who were advancing too far), but the AI isn't trying to outmaneuver to get the human troops to rout (didn't in STW/MTW either), and when they rout it will chase them with useless infantry as its cavalry was killed hours ago anyway, disintegrating the army's cohesion. Phalanxes are introduced, relying on formation for its effectiveness, but the AI breaks open its line when attacking and will fruitlessly chase dispersing skirmishers with them.
Meh. The list goes on and on.
Yeah but in STW only the Daimo, not every family members or rather sons, had a retinue of heavy cavalry and the size, 11, was fix even if you changed the units' size in the options!
I just think that they stress out a lot more in STW, at least in the game manual lol (I haven't tested that out) about the relation between cohesion and morale and a little about units' strenghts. Some elitle units were almost unbeatable by lesser troops like some Hounds of Kornus or something like belonging to the Picts faction I think, in the north of the Britain Isles in BI (can't remember what it is) which I remember seeing one unit of them who simply charged through one of my unit of roman spermen standing on the wall, soldiers being send flying everywhere and the whole unit dead after that with only a few casualties inflicted to those monsters. Or having a elite unit standing perfectly still while archer units shoot volley after volley of flaming arrows on them and not a single one being killed :inquisitive:
But Bovi you are right, the AI had less think to deal with or making use of, making it more effective at fighting battles and acting on the strategic map.
Yep, I've seen some preatty impresive stuff in MTW. I haven't played STW though, but I've heard from many Vets the AI was even tougher.
I too am more exited about EB2 comming out than E:TW. Not just a PC issue, but can't wait to see the Gauls with individual looking soldiers. The clone armies look good with more "Civilized" factions.
It'll be nice for many a regional unit too. You can now reflect different ethnic backgrounds in Pantodapoi for example; and you can reflect that some members of a particular unit may have had a bit more money to spend on their gear...
Just remembering that I enjoyed STW the most as it had better AI but, and do correct me if I am wrong (incase anyone needed an invitation on this forum), as the battlemaps were always the same for each region didn't the AI always set up the same way on each battlemap? By the end of it I knew where every ambush was coming from.
Surely this would mean the AI hasn't really improved but just it was more scripted in STW (didn't really get to play MTW for a couple of reasons)?
Anyway I would take STW campaign/battle maps any day over RTW's if it meant the old AI was back.
Still want the RTW graphics (modded by EB or RTR or another mod of comparable standard of course) though being the sucker I am for a pretty army.
Sadly - putting games out for most companies is mostly (if not only) about what you can sell. I'll be suprised, actually, if E:TW is anything more than new skins, new map, new cities with a couple of obligatory new features for the reviewers to overhype.
I realise that I'm old enough to be a cynic - but they've had now 4 opportunities (If you count the BI and Kindoms expansions) and quite a few years to work on diplomacy, AI and other not so great features and have left those things relatively untouched while spending most of their time tarting up the game.
I'll buy it - to give them development money playing the longshot that one day they'll actually produce a reworked AI but, like M2TW, I'll be waiting for an EB or other quality mod to actually play it.
To be honest, the graphics isn't that impressive to me. The water is excellent, yes, but the ships look like made out of plastic and are too clean...
Agree regarding the Battle AI, with relatively few battlemaps the AI can have scripted battle-plans that make life hard on a player but these had to be removed for RTW with its thousands of semi-random generated battlemaps.
For the graphics, they do look too clean & plasticy but at least their proportions & shape look reasonably correct. Much better than any other 3d attempt at Age of Sail ships I can recall seeing.
I agree with the ship looking like a toy. But, eventually after years of frustration skins will be able to be overridden and someone will give them a not so clean look. A least the community is aware once a TW game comes out there are years of lag before you can play it enjoyably. But Blizzard definitely isn't worried about losing its fanbase, TW doesn't enjoy that same confidence. Blizzard rocks nevertheless and hardly ever disappoints (except WC3 :)
Aye, the pictures are nice but kinda exactly what I would expect. People get to post a bunch of cool pictures of spectacular naval combats as a sales pitch. Here's hoping they actually give the ships some purpose to movement and some logic to their actions. Can you imagine them moving about as they do in RTW or M2TW? Blockades, keeping shipping lanes open, piracy, Letter of Marque, etc all would be great additions but only if coded a bit better than what we see the games doing now.
My guess is that, like RTW and M2TW, it's in the multiplayer or standalone historical battles that those options will shine and not on the campaign map. Here's hoping I'm wrong :beam: .
Well.... its my hypothesis, but I think IF CA took thier time to deliver games, and took their time in the Beta testing like Blizzard, then CA would not have a problem keeping their fan base alive. Hell, I think is the fact that people can MOD RTW and MTW2 that CA has a fanbase alive. (here I am speaking for myself, I probably would have stopped playing RTW long ago and would not recommend this game to anyone if not for EB)Quote:
Originally Posted by skuzzy
Somehow I am still disappointed even though I expected the Dutch to be in as well... :no:
What I don't understand is the CA's ignorance regarding modding. They are the masters of marketing (just look at their trailers and previews, they all scream: "BUY ME!"), yet they seem to underestimate the power of modding. I mean, modding can do wonders - Morrowind was alive for 3-4 years after its release due to mods and even the press praised the editor shipped with the game. RTW would be a much better game without hardcoded ****. Some modding tools, reasonable game modability and I think that the sales would be much higher.
Methinks that unlocking the hardcoded AI for RTW would only show that the emperor has no clothes. Without releasing the sourcecode, most moddable games are going to have some or many hardcoded limits and any company is going to have to be wary about releasing sourcecode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybvep
Modding the AI in RTW for things like diplomacy and unit movement / strategy would require quite a few hooks be in place to support all the options modders would want available and IMO are likely just not there.
I really don't see CA's problem. Firaxis did it just fine with Civilization(almost everything is in XML and Python, and everything else can be modded with their SDK. And it runs beautifully as long as your computer doesn't belong in a dumpster), and the AI has a lot more to consider on a turn-to-turn basis. I could see possibly the battle map AI, but certainly not the strat-map AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
So the main problem is that CA is damn lazy. I'm sure they will continue making modding more easy (to let modders do job instead of them!:smug2: ) But hardcoded ****~:angry: ...Hm-mQuote:
The feeling I am getting is that CA has gotten a little lazy with the details. If you look at the video "Making of Total War" (is on youtube)
I don't think so...
I strongly suggest to Team don't skip M2TW, as comrade NeoSpartan said, and coz it gives many very useful adds. Maybe skip ETW, if rtw2 will be after it? It should present all innovations (naval battles,etc) and based on our roman era.
What do you think about it?
Very good point! Someone mentioned earlier that the reason some limits are hardcoded is so that they don't have to produce SDK and partially reveal their code. While this is true in some cases... I cannot understand what the number of regions, units, and factions have to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elminster12
I, personally, don't expect CA to make it as moddable as Civ 4 is, that would be too good to be true, but XML instead of what they have now and more items exposed to it... would certainly be nice. And less proprietary formats would be nice too.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elminster12
I guess what I'm saying is that for something in the game to work - say diplomacy - the options or the potential for options would have to be available and the behavior of the AI on the strategic map or the potential to change such would have to be available. I doubt either are in RTW.
Civ certainly has a more developed diplomacy than any of the CA games and I truly believe that CA is focused more on the actual combats than the campaign map itself.