Are you Orgahs happy with the decision made by having a 18th century TW game? Says your pros and cons, and don't forget to vote. :joker:
Printable View
Are you Orgahs happy with the decision made by having a 18th century TW game? Says your pros and cons, and don't forget to vote. :joker:
Well its better than rome 2 , but still i hoped for something asian oriented.
Count me in as a "Not Sure".
Not crazy about this period of history....but then again, CA couldn't keep retreading old ground (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) could they?
Absolutely! I can't really think of an era that fits the TW game mechanics better.
In terms of the campaign map it was incredibly competitive and complex.
On the battlefield I have always had to suspend my disbelief when ordering a discrete "unit" of dismounted knights to charge in a neat formation. Even the R TW series had problems for me. The blobby barbarian formation just seemed a bit of a bodge as a game mechnic. The canon and musket era had units manoeuvring in precise formations, changing formations firing to precise drills etc...
Plus this whole time period is defining to the world as it is still experienced today. I know the Romans had a huge impact and all that, but it can be a bit remote. Look at the world around yo now and you can still see this period right there in front of you. The relics of empire, the new nations, the new politics. More than any Renaissance Humanism the Enlightenment's focus on Reason pulled us and the rest of the world out of the claws of medieval obscurantism - pity we seem to be slipping back towards it!
I must admit I am happy now I have had time to think about it, I am looking forward to this immensly.
Its brining in a new period of history where the tactics and huge battles still remain, had it gone towards a period any time after Napoleon I wouldn't be buying it.
Looks good, got EUIII to tide me over 'til it lands :2thumbsup:
Frankly, they should finish M2TW first. Another expansion wouldn't hurt either. Gunplay doesn't excite me in any event; give me guys hacking each other up with swords any day.:smash:
CA in Australia are in charge of MTWII, its unlikely there will be anymore expansions for it but not entirely impossible, although they are most likely now starting TW 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
I'm happy. This period of warfare is one of my personal favorites. Problem is it's also one of the least understood. There are so many prejuidices and incorrect preconceptions around musket warfare I feel ETW might take a bit of unfair flak.
I don't know, depends on how the game plays.
I can imagine it being an awesome, immersive game if done right, but if it will be too "accessible", it can also turn out very bad. From experience I'd have to say it should be decent and keep me playing for months, but you never know, I'm not even sure about getting Kingdoms, some things about it sound more limiting and not to my taste, which dragged my initial enthusiasm down quite a bit.
I'm very hesitant about this game, the impression I have is that with both sides lined up facing each other; 40% of the men on the field will be dead after one volly.
And I'll be interested to see how tacking is handled in ship battles.
I am interested to see how you control the boats really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
While the era is right up my alley, nonetheless I'm unhappy with the choice. Total War has never been great at skirmishing and ranged combat. And now they take on the era where both are becoming dominant. Oh dear!
I suppose they had to do this. It was the obvious next step, but I'm not too thrilled about it. On the plus side, I'm interested to see what they do with tactical naval combat. If they make it reasonably realistic, with points of sail and weather as *the* major tactical element, that will be a strong attraction for me. If it's just ships driving around like cars, feh.... I'll pass.
I'm also not that hot on gunpowder battles. This may be the prejudice and incorrect perception lars573 mentioned, but I see it as two armies lined up at a distance across an open field, with soldiers slowly dropping one by one until one army is left standing, and not that much maneuver. I know that not all historic battles played out like that, but a heck of a lot of them did. One of the big attractions of the TW series for me has been the up close and personal, hack and slash, melee combat with an interesting mix of units.
So I don't know.... I voted "no they should have done something else" because I'm not sure the naval combat will be good, and I'm not naturally attracted to this period. Fooey. I was really hoping for a Three Kingdoms game, or anything else without gunpowder.
according to the prieview, new AI, new mechanics, new battlefield...I wouldn't be so judgmental , after seeing 3 images of boats shooting around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmar Bijlsma
Not sure - the chosen era was not particularly high on my wishlist (I wasn't so keen on gunpowder) - but I am certainly open to be convinved otherwise and the naval battles might be a very interesting addition.
I am likely to buy it if it turns out to be well done but I will probably wait a bit longer than for the previous installments to see how other people here like it.
Of course a new PC will also be required as mine is already 3.5 years old (but I was planning to get a new one next year anyway).
Bottomline: It's not a dream come true for me, but it's not a "no-no" either.
I find it funny that they haven't even fixed MTW2 yet and they've already started something completely new with a totally new engine. Perhaps they should learn from their mistakes from Rome and MTW2 (and fix them) before they try something they've not dabbled in before.
Put me down as a no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Internet
M2 was made by CA oz, afaik ETW is being developed by the UK studio they developed stw, mtw and rtw.
I love it... I am a big fan of Sharpe and such but my historical reading of the time period is very lacking... Also as a Brit living in the US I have a definate interest in the revolutionary war period...
My only wish would be to bulk out the time scale a little to start say 1600 and run through to 1800... That should really drive the fast pace of technical advance into sharp focus...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monarch
RTW had just as many bad bugs as MTW2. TBH i don't have high hopes for ETW, the only reason i still play Rome is because teams like RTR and EB have done a fantastic job in improving the game so much and it is the only reason Rome has become as popular as it is IMO.
Well, I have heard those premises before. What CA promises and what they can deliver tend not to be the same thing. I'm not writing it off, mind you. But and this point not being sceptical would be foolish. If I'm judgemental, seven years of reading CA's PR department musings made me so... or sumfink! Because what you are reading now isn't designed to inform you about the game features, it's function is to make you want it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovasìjász
Oh well, it isn't all bad. Maybe this will make CA re-introduce rank morale bonuses. It's essential for musketry based warfare.
And I have to admit, the prospect of ship to ship actions are rather nice. Oh hell, who am I kidding? I'm going to buy it anyway, then probably moan about it afterwards! :laugh4:
I'm happy about the decision, my intrest in the era was piqued after playing ntw2, but the chance to play a colonial era campaign sounds great.
I do hope they make the naval battles into another complete tactical element, with wind direction etc having the necessary effect on the battle. The thought of a unleashing a devastating broadside into your enemy followed by boarding and a melee on her decks does sound good.
Thats a yes.
hope they wont rush it
[quote]Happy with the decision made?
Not necessarily happy. I am rather skeptical about how it will be.
Game publishers and developers have boasted many a time about the product they are to release. Often I observe all kinds of hyping and nice-looking texts describing an upcoming game, pictures too and trailers and other video clips. And then the product is finalized and released and what do I see? It didn't become the good superior game one would expect. A more critical mind would even be more disappointed (and I have a critical mind).
No, no... really... Happiness is out of the question for me. I will await its release, observe how other people talk about it, purchase it when its price has dropped, await patches, and THEN play. That is how skeptical I am. In fact, I think I will await the Gold edition or something like it that has it all in one box.
The decision that it features this certain era is in order I guess.
Like many of the posters here, I, too, am not overly enamoured with gunpowder.
I have made the small mod to M2TW, changing the turns to be 1 turn = 6 months. This makes my generals age at the same rate as the game and also gives me the benefit of playing and winning a grand campaign long before gun powder units even become available. This is my preference.
I must admit I am intrigued by the addition of the naval battles. I trust it will be very cool.
The bottom line is, for me, that now I only play the TW games. For some reason the perfect mix of turn-based strategy on the campaign map, combined with the RTS element of real-time battle, is exactly what I have always been looking for in a computer game where I am going to spend (waste) countless hours of my time!:laugh4: I just can't seem to get into any other games right now. It has been this way for me since late 2005, when I first acquired Rome: Total War.
So, I voted "not sure". I will definitely buy it, there is no doubt about that. I am just not convinced that I will like the time period. I, too, like the "hack & slash" of melee combat with swordsmen, billmen, spearmen, etc.
Too early to tell. I like the period (or I do by the time the French and Indian War starts) but it will still boil down to how good of a game it is.
That means, among other things:
AI
Modability
Good sense of scale
I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...
Pretty much what he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
:thumbsup:
The era is just as good as any pre WWI - in fact with all this unecessary gunpowder and artillery in MTW2 it was sort of predictable; commercially wise too (to stand above the various competitors -EUIII & AoE3&the Lordz? - a needed change of pace for CA - and the instrumental inclusion of the US as a playable faction i would guess). Its the implementation though that will count for me.
When i compare the status of vanilla MTW and RTW (and MTW2 altough i havent played this that much) with their mods, i find that the vanilla games are not fine tuned at all and the engine's potential and gameplay balance are not really explored/pursued by CA it self (they are by modders).
Of course this is natural considering all the bugs that the games contain upon release especially since RTW; CA is busy ironing them out and also making new games with apparently even more features than they can reasonably handle upon release as experience suggests.
Probably the main debate will be over "how tactical gunpowder warfare can be" and the like, but this is not the point as far as i am concerned; we know that tactics mattered then. The point is how the game engine will cope and how gameplay will be, be it against the AI or in mp, and this will not be revealed before release.
A disheartening thing is the continuing abundance of features and the all important "wow" seeking. Aren't people tired with all this marketing style promises, flashy screenshots and the Mike Simpson cliche that "this will be the best Total War game ever" in every announcement of a brand new release?
MTW2 screenshots looked (and look) just as impressive as the ones they've been released for ETW, yet the dynamic visual impression with the spasmodic animations and the dissapearing and reappearing cavalry lances made the whole look like the annual dance of a school for kids with special needs with Harry Houdini as a guest to me - let alone a battle - so i'll keep my jaw and reservations firmly in their place until i actually see the whole thing at work.
Another non-measurable feature is immersiveness, that elusive quality that indicates originality of atmosphere, or absence of it. Again, experience suggests that little do impressive screenshots and CGs have to do with that. Past RTW CA has treated the cinematic factor of their games in a litteral way; however as it was indicated countless times by many the whole feels "gamy", in comparison to their older games. I doubt that ETW will take a different approach on that too, although i hope i'm proved wrong.
Having said all this, the game has potential to be great with the naval battles adding a new element of depth to it.
However it can also (more probably, experience says) be the usual conquest rush that CA favors in the campaign game, with poor AI, meaningless diplomacy and plenty of new bugs that the community can discover, discuss, argue about and a lack of balance on the battlefield for the hundred new units and unit types.
I guess the mp part at least will be surely great since an "original" suggestion thread has been opened in the .com. Obviously all that feedback and suggestions by people like Yellow Mellon or of the old mp community in the Jousting Fields that made thread upon thread of suggestions and plenty of modifications to show their ideas at work weren't "original" enough.
Many Thanks
Noir
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)
I'll still buy it because I'm a sucker for Total War series... but I wish they didn't waste the Alexander and fall of Rome periods on expansions.
Well put, Ser Clegane; you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Two big strikes against this game (for me) is that I have only a mild interest in the historical period covered, plus I'm not a big gunpowder afficianado -- I don't even care for the late Medieval period all that much because of the introduction of cannon.
For me, my getting the game will depend on a couple key things: How well the naval battles turn out, and how good the AI and diplomacy is this time around. I'm admittedly not terribly optimistic, but I'm not going to just write off Empire either. Right now, I'm a "maybe" and leaning towards "no".
Yes, simply because it promises a bit of change. I liked the evolution from the STW/MTW engine to the RTW/M2TW engine. I expect that CA will make similarly great leaps to the third gen engine.
Now I am just praying that the AI doesn't get left behind in the jump.
Good point. Well, if they stick with the current format where all ships are basically combat-oriented (no unarmed merchant ships), then no pirate in that period would mess with an actual government fleet unless they were a sanctioned raider; effectively another government-backed fleet. So there shouldn't be the kind of random small-time pirate hassles we have in RTW and M2TW. There need to be a few single ship pirates in the Caribbean or it won't have the right flavor, but I hope they don't overdo that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I'd like to see a focus on larger fleet battles, so let's hope they've figured out a way to reduce the frequency of naval combat to the point where each battle is more "epic" and worth the time to play it out. Maybe a requirement for certain ship types, or numbers of ships in a fleet before 3D tactical battles can be fought?
And also a more fine-grained and reliable auto-calc when you want to bypass them. I'm hoping the tactical elements are realistic enough (weather and points of sail) that a lot of people would want to bypass them. If the naval combat is quick and easy, then it can't possibly be realistic enough for us salty dogs who actually know a thing or two about sailing. If the sea battles don't match the realism (such as it is) of the 3D land battles, CA will never hear the end of it.
:captain:
I'm... content. Not the best period for them to make a game in (they really needed to go back and make S2:TW), but better than pretty much any time period afterwards. The problem I see (and the reason that games set in times past E:TW) is that the majority of troops will be Missile troops. You'll have Cavalry too, at least, but it's not like there were a lot of swordsmen in the 1700s.
I'm now rather sorry that samurai Japan - my favourite period - was the first in the series as it is now rather dated. Will probably never see a samurai game with all the benefits incorporated from RTW onwards that the subject required...
Actually, very happy. They had already 2 games about the medieval era, as from Rome. The asian part was also aboarded. Also, i think this game can be awesome since you have the possibility the dominate the world, literally! I mean, we don't know it but, if you can dominate all europe, north africa, west asia and most of america, why not to have a world map?
Also:
http://www.shacknews.com/screenshots...4635&id=104099
A love this graphics :)
I love it. It was exactly what I had hoped for. The period is just perfect for the whole game mechanics, and it'll allow CA to get away from the paper-scissors-rock system that's not exactly realistic and in my opinion doesn't make much sense from a gameplay point-of-view either.
Imagine: We will get a map of the whole world, be able to conquer it, bring it under our rule. We can send whole continents into ruin or make them thrive on our whim. We will finally be able to fight naval battles, and experience all the new tactics that are introduced there, and in real, disciplined gunpowder battles.
If we're lucky, CA will even finally include a support mechanism (maybe optional) which would also open up a completely new huge batch of gameplay decisions.
The period introduced the first truly global empires, the industrial revolution and colonization with all their good and bad points. And it's a brand new setting. I know a lot of you wanted to see another stick-and-blade game, but this is much more interesting in my opinion.
CA couldn't have made a better decision.
So now it appears CA Oz and M2TW were created simply to sate our hunger for TW games in the interim, whilst in the grand scheme of things this was what CA Proper had long planned for and developed.
I'm just as amazed as everyone else is at the announcement but, as Noir has discussed, it's when we finally play the game for weeks on end that we'll see whether it will stand the test of time.
I'm not sure... I would've liked to have seen a new game around like "Ancient Total War" where the focus isn't on Rome as much, maybe more like Grecce and East Asia, Would be nice to have factions that had great navaies such as the Greeks, Persians, Phoenicians, would be great to have triemes ramming into an enemy ship whiling slowly moving back to let it sink :2thumbsup:
Since I love gunpowder units and loves the NTW1 mod for MTW1, this era fits me like a glove.
And to make it even more special, naval battles.
I couldn't be more happier with this.
Well put yourself, Martok; as you have pretty much echoed my sentiments as well. Being a classical era fan i was really hoping for RTW2. I have little interest in the era that'll be covered by the game....Gunpowder units and battles?....Bah!!!!....I'll take Diadochi, Roman Legions and Spartans everytime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Although the naval battle stuff sounds pretty cool. Put me down for no.
Finally, pantaloons!
I'm happy with it, but I would hope that they would have extend the timeline a little.
Too short a time period for this new game. It could have been extended to the ACW etc. with Ironclads, stopping at about 1870 or so.
Seems like a Pirates game in effect, or Great Age of Sail or whatever the older and good game was named.
Also seems like a quickie, a game made with a new engine just to see how it will be accepted, then maybe in the future other time periods will be covered such as the Ancients through Renaissance eras.
I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.
Chris
As most of you know me, I am most certainly not likely to mince words if I think the game mechanics have let us down.
But I think many here (and understandably after M2TW), are a little wary of the claims made by the marketers.
As we all know and understand marketing is about...Ok put nicely, propaganda.
Hence the importance of coders, and the game developers information more than anything else.
But, lets not jump the gun.
The inclusion of Naval battles is certainly a step forward. It is something we asked for(and hoped for) way back in MTW.
It was almost a forgone conclusion that CA would progress the time line due to the inclusion of Cannon and Musket in M2TW, by precedence CA try out the toys in a prep, within each previous game.
And no different here.
But we must deviod ourselves of our current opinions and focus instead upon the developing new release.
Perhaps, there is still time to help with what we want with regards to the new game?
As CA release information, lets us try and build upon it with regards to information they provide, and the information we otherwise feel needs to be included.
With ETW I hope to see some basic improvements, such as increase in tradible goods, with the ability to mod the number and types.
I would like to see the return of Titles. As in MTW attach to the name, and ability to award titles to generals et cetera... of Different ranks, exempli gratia; Knight (sir), Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marques, Dukes, and maybe even Princes. All with the ability to preceed in lineage.
I would like to see and end to adoption in the family tree. It was way over used and disfunctional by comparision with MTW family tree imho.
I do like the generals part tho. But not including the generals marriage to a princess and right to claim family in succession.
But, perhaps we can have Families of Lords, that as a lord dies, his son takes the titles and still provides service to the empire.
This way allowing the royal family help in the governance of the empire.
Choosing a faction heir, make it primus genetia as in salic law. With the ability to change it if we want? As in RTW.
Make the unit card have a button on it, that can allow us to award titles or view and change other options. to ease the micro mangement.
I hate having to reproduce spies inter alia. Unless they are killed.
So let us work towards making the imporvements of this new game, and hope we are taken note of by the powers that be.
So if not already, lets start a thread in poin form on what we would like to see, and ideas underneath on how we think in the current format, these can be achived.
sincerely
fenir
Sure, but that makes sense if they're actually doing a fairly realistic sail-based naval combat engine. The AI has to be designed to work with those tactics. Once you get into Ironclads you're in the age of Steam. You can point the ship in any direction, and wind-based tactics don't matter. It's a whole other tactical situation, which implies a different tactical AI to develop.Quote:
Originally Posted by christof139
I'd go for that Ancient/Medieval naval game too. The boarding/ramming action would be fun, and we'd get to play with Greek Fire! Probably more of a niche market thing though, so I understand why they did this as their first naval combat engine. If they get this right (I'm naturally skeptical but I hope I'm proven wrong), then it can be easily adapted to an expansion or later game with steam powered navies, or a mix or sail and steam. Internal combustion powered ships are much easier to model than sailing ships and tactics.Quote:
I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.
I voted "not sure".
I was rather hoping for epic, colorful battles in Ancient China and Korea. (Including naval warfare. Gotta have those Korean ships!)
Empire's time period isn't one that I'd say I'm overly interested in, but the one game I played (ages ago) that was set in this period, I ended up enjoying quite a bit. And I do love naval warfare of this period.
All-in-all, I think it'll be fun, but I'll still play Medieval2 (my very favorite period), as well.
Yay for variety!
i voted no and for something else. i would prefer them to stay away from gun powder and stick with true formation warfare. the thing that made old school warfare so cool was you basically lined up on both sides and yelled, "let's kick some ass!" and everybody ran in and started swinging swords and axes. it's a bit chaotic, yeah, but much more fun to control in my opinion. i think the landscape would look very different today without the discovery of gun powder.
it's been done like 30 times by KOEI, but i would have liked to have seen a Han Dynasty, or some other Chinese Imperial installment from the turn of the century, or even further back to Babylonian/Persian wars between 600-400 BC, leading up to the Roman Empire. Bandit Kings of Ancient China did the same thing, in the sense that you had until a certain year to complete your goals before the Mongolian conquest began and your game was over.
but yeah, something in between 1000 and 200 BC in the Middle East, or between 200 BC and 600 AD in ancient China.
not that this won't be fun, because it will be a blast and i will pre-order as soon as it is available. but Medieval, Rome,and Medieval 2 all deal in the same area, and all this does is expand on that area by adding north america and i guess more asia and africa. at that point, you might as well just do the whole world. i am uber excited about Naval battles...
Well, like I said earlier, personally I can’t think of an era better suited to the mechanics of the TW battles. Credible formations drilled to manoeuvre on a battlefield in different formations. This was never something that fitted comfortably with most of the factions in a medieval or dark ages setting. Even the RTW had a fair few factions which would never have walked about a battlefield in formations of serried ranks – Gauls, Germans, etc… Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don’t mean a bunch of guys in a shieldwall, that’s not a military formation capable of meaningful evolutions and drills.
It makes me wonder when people talk about the lack of tactics in the gunpowder era. As opposed to the medieval? By gunpowder era most of the ancient (classical) texts had been restudied, most of the more fantastical elements tried and dropped in the Renaissance (re-introduction of “legionary” armed troops, attempts to use the turtle, etc…) useful lessons learned and new tactics were evolving. Riflemen and jaegers showing the first outline of what the modern soldier looks like.
I have also felt the dark cloud of “fantasy” hanging over some of the earlier games, where units felt they were in the game to pad out a faction. Got to say this really took off with the “martial arts” film second edition of Shogun TW. Remember the “super samurai” unit of 1 man who could take down a whole formation of spearmen with uber katana (the best sword in the world don’t cha know)? That’s OK for Jacky Chan but not a game that has a pretence at historical accuracy, however tenuous.
The naval battles will simply add an extra layer of icing for me.
Given all that, I do subscribe to the views expressed here that we will still have to wait and see. I am worried not about the battlefield era setting but the campaign AI. This seems to be getting more complex which on the one hand is good, but on the other could seriously rubbish the battles.
One thing that does worry me with the TW series is that reviews always talk of the game being an “RTS”. I just hope it never develops into that – the PAUSE button rules the tactics of this game.
Anyway, after a lot of blather, and just re-itterate, yes I am cautiously happy.
The same game engine within the same game could handle both sail and steamships, it would be a simple matter of having the steamships not affected by the wind too much if at all, and that would be done by simply coding it into the unit stats etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
So, I'll wait until these things are done.
For large ancient battles involving hundreds of ships per side, a scale of 1 model/sprite to 5 actual ships might work, as this way you would get the tactiacl feel of such a sea battle, and a land combat game engine could be adapted for use. So, you would have a unit of 5 Triremes as compared to 60 Infantrymen, or 10 Biremes/Liburnians/Uniremes/Hemiolas/Dhows/Knarrs/Whatevers. This could easily be done, but I think it is a matter of just how many customers would appreciate it. If you mantion the word 'Economus' to most people, they probably would think you are speaking of the Greek God of economy or the economy itself in one manner or another. :wall:
Chris
PS: @FreedomO.: Actually the Gauls and Germans frequently and usually advanced in serried ranks at a steady pace until they got close enough to the enemy to initiate a charge. They even held their ranks on the defensive in a very disciplined manner and this is documented in several original sources. They weren't idiots but did not have the smaller and more flexible units of the Romans, but they didn't start a charge 200 yard/meters away from the enemy as that would tire them out quickly, and they were very familiar with warfare.
Definitely NO.
I don't like gunpowder warfare prior to WWI, and I prefer pre-gunpowder warfare overall anyway. I'm also not very fond of most of the era covered (the only part sparking my interest is the French Revolution/Napoléon period).
Additionnally, I'm quite wary of all the things that Noir pointed out : lack of polish, many bugs, unexploited potential. This latter one, particularly considering the MTW2 debacle when it comes to the "feel" of the battle (with ridiculous unit behaviour and very boring and lethargic fighting) doesn't make me any more optimistic.
All the commercial/marketting hype tends to make me more and more wary of the quality and depth of the game. Usually, the more you make flashy presentations and dithyrambic speech about how great the game will be, the more consolized and bland it is.
CA is a bit the Bethesda of strategy games : they have enormous ambition, they make games which are a genre by themselves, they have titanic potential, but they fall short of polish, QA testing and balance, letting the modder doing the final job - and often even not allowing them to do with hardcoded limits all over.
Anyway, I will NOT buy this one. If I ever play it, it'd be because someone give or lend me, but I'm really not interested at all in this game.
Here we go...Quote:
Originally Posted by christof139
I don't doubt (in fact I know) that the "barbarians" were not idiots and did use formations etc... However, it would have been large bodies of men moving forwards, not discrete units moving around in formation from one end of the battle field to another. They never achieved that kind of flexibility on a consistent basis, precisely because their society was more fractured. Which isn't a negative reflection on them, just a fact of their differences. They never centralised their power structures to the point were they could impose standard training, drills, logistics, uniforms, weaponry, etc... These are all things the TW battle format needs and fits better to the period in question. It wasn't able to comfortably represent the diversity of the barbarian faction in my eyes is all.
By the accent you wouldn't be French would you?:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akka
Definitely yes. While i'm sure another pre-gunpowder era wouldve been fine (e.g. 3 kingdoms), it would run the risk of just being the same game all over again but with different costumes. I mean, how many times do you want to play swords vs archers vs cavalry?
A change of pace was definitely required, something with a completely different feel to it. I'm sure they'll return to pre-gunpowder for the next game in the series anyway.
No, they should have made something else. I have no interest in this time period whatsoever. They should have made Shogun 2: Total War or Asia: Total War. Asia in general got snubbed.
Definately yes!
I've been one of those who've wanted a gunpowder game for TW4 for a long time. The NTW mod, even with all its limitations of gameplay and AI, was tremendous fun and showed what potential this era has.
The naval battles sound like they are implementing lots of different factors, so its clearly being taken seriously. Now if they couple that with a real-time campaign map (as has been discussed here before).......*drools*
Of course, CA need to include a free PC upgrade and a time-warping maching that gives me 4-5 spare hours a day so I can actually play the game ~:)
EDIT: Oh, and the modders will have a field day with this. Sooooo many eras and wars can now be properly done - ECW, 30 yrs war, right through to the Crimean War and ACW
Yes, I think I'll have fun with it. I actually really enjoy ranged battles in MTW 2 (though not so much in the first medieval). Lone lines of muskets, and shock cavalry to break the enemy's troops, yum.
Really, as long as they don't make another damn WW2 game, I'll be happy with whatever they do after Empire, too.
To be fair this Total War has the potential to end the midlessly annoying "conquer everybody" mentality that has existed all through out the series. In Shogun it made sense, after all you were competing to become Shogun in one small area, but conquering the entire of Europe never made sense in Medieval, and in reality conquering it all never did in Rome either.
Empire has the opportunity to play much like Europa Universalis in the sense that it can bring back the Glorius Achievements to build up points, and allow you to win by merely colonising certain area's and bringing your country forward in tech and so forth, thus stopping the boring "conquer everything" syndrome that has dogged Total War. I will admit I am looking forward greatly to Kindoms due to the area being reduced, making the conquering seem more, possible, really.
I really do want Glorious Achievements back, it was an immense feature and really did let you play to your own hearts content without having to blitz the rest of Europe.
After reading the typical PR promotion about Empire i'm not sure Glorious achievements are in.
They talk too much about world-spanning empires(aka: conquer at least 50 provinces, etc...)
They claim that they listen to their fanbase(a poll was even made), but Glorious achievements would be a top point on the wishlist of their fans.
Perhaps they listened this time...
The period maybe the right one choosed but let's see what they will manage to do.
Still Shogun:TW deserves a remake, in my opinion.
i hope for the best but i really don't have high expectations
Will Boney/Nappy era be covered as well?
I'm looking forward to it. I think the choice of the "Wooden ships & Iron Men" era is spot on in light of the decision to finally add actual naval combat.
I look forward to fighting the Amercian revolutionary war.
im gonna love this game alright. Just hope its the MIITW engine and not a new one(i need a new pc if its a new engine).
Empire will be using a brand new engine.
I like the Idea though that you can "capture" buildings on the battlemap and use them to fire on the enemy.. should be neat to see how that works... Hopefully they fix the idea of amubushes.. I think you should be able to move troops in woods.. unless it's obvious there are there.. but say on the other side of some woods. :yes:
Absolutely psyched for this one. This is the one I've been waiting for since they started making total war
Yep. Probably one of the main reason I do like Napoléonic era, to be honest, together with the continent-spanning scale of the conflicts, and the personnality of the little megalomaniac :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Freedom Onanist
Thinking about it just now; this feature could lead to some interesting 'capture the flag' type multi player maps.Quote:
Originally Posted by iblewafuse14
Acutally, the more I think about it, I am glad they chose this time period over what could have been (a grand disaster): 1939-1945: Total War
:sweatdrop:
Unless you're playing as Napoleonic France ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by NagatsukaShumi
In which case you just go for everything:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi
Some of you are right though, this is better than WW2 Total War. Company of Heroes reached the pinnacle of WW2 rts, everyone else should just give up.
Yeah, I'd say I'm fairly happy with the direction CA are taking this. :2thumbsup: I think it would have been interesting to re explore Rome or head East to Medieval Indo-China but if they get the gunpowder and navel battles right and if the AI re write is more successful than MTW2's version then game could be a corker. However I am surprised CA's website only mentions Europe, America and India. I would have thought Africa and East Asia would have been needed in order to properly explore European Empire building.
My guess is they decided that having an aspect to the game featuring African slaves would be too controversial. They have slaves in RTW and MTW but the slaves that this game would have be a little to fresh on the memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
My guess is there will be mentions of it in Historical Events and the like, but no slave resource.
im happy, but i wont be if the game is rated "M" or has really high system reqiurements.
This is best news I've seen all day, its so awesome, not only can you board ships in naval combat, but you have musicians and drumers on the field of battle just like how it was, this game will be amazing no doubt about it.
I've been dying to play with the Continental army in a game for the longest time.
After all the fuss that was made about M2TW and what we actually got, why would anyone be expecting much from this idea? M2TW is still not fixed.
.......Orda
That said the colonisation of Africa and East Asia truly started after the 18th Century, so in a way it does make sense not to include them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Lane
If players have been complaining about irritating commentary how long before there rioting because of non stop bag pipes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailman653
On a more serious note Sharpe and the likes shows us what led the British army into battle, does any one know it if was anything different from pipe and drums for other nations armies?
This has the potential to be great. Very great. Lets see how Naval Combat comes, as well as a demo, or videos.
Bloody French, when we all stop expanding in Europe they decide to start :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi