Ladder

[RTKBarrett]

The game is a massive dissapointment already... its so limited

[Kenchi_Sulla]

I am not sure about this ladder/stats thing.... Ofcourse, I do not really care about it so that could explain my ignorance :D... Heart of TW is tournaments imo, not single game stats/ladders.

[RTKBarrett]

Yes but again like many things that have been previously advertised... this has not been delivered. Lies and deceit will only go so far...

[Paolai]

Yes, I would like to know if CA lied about the ladder or not

and

I would like to know then the difference between comp games and friendly ones

and

Why CA called personal stats: ladder.

Im getting old, I am very curiosus

[Mars]

Amazing, there is no ladder. But, same as the online-campaing, it prolly will get delivered with a patch someday. ;)

[Paolai]

weird thing is that there are competitive games and friendly ones

[Swoosh So]

Probably will say they will tag on at a later date, been reading the steam forums and the people there say steam have never advertised leagues and ladders and that it was only sega that promised it on their page.

I know some rts games use automatch compeditive to define your stats not sure how it works in empire totalwar.

[Monarch]

The game is a massive dissapointment

Surprised?

[Kenchi_Sulla]

Monarch, what do you find lacking in the game?

[tibilicus]

I echo the limitations. Whilst I still can't play due to steam and my firewall being stubborn as I can tell it's going to be limited by seeing there is only a maximum of what, 8 infantry units? It's simply limiting game play to the same tactics as well as creating the same generic army builds.


Take Rome and BI for example, you had a range of factions and units each varying to such a degree that it created dynamics in the tactical game play. For example a faction like Lombardy would be a threat because of their armour piercing axemen, you would then have to change your tactics to adapt to that faction. For example you couldn't use your usual Saxons army as you would get eaten alive, you would have to adapt and change. Bear in mind this example might be a bit outdated as Rome/BI was a while back and my memory is vague.

Anyway you get my point, limiting the variation in factions and units makes for awfully similar game play and takes out a huge tactical side to the game. I'm all for making things balanced but that shouldn't mean cutting things down.

[pevergreen]

I echo the limitations. Whilst I still can't play due to steam and my firewall being stubborn as I can tell it's going to be limited by seeing there is only a maximum of what, 8 infantry units? It's simply limiting game play to the same tactics as well as creating the same generic army builds.

To my understanding, wasnt Shogun like this?

This game acurately reflects the time period. If you don't like it, why would you buy it?

Its about tactics, not uber units.

[tibilicus]

To my understanding, wasnt Shogun like this?

And that would be a step back to what, 1999? You get all these people ranting and raving about how great shogun was but for someone who likes to see the continuous development of games why on earth would I want that? If I wanted to play Shogun I would buy it on the cheap and play on one of the servers which are hosted, I want play a game that will bring something new to the table.

This game accurately reflects the time period. If you don't like it, why would you buy it?

Its about tactics, not uber units.

It may accurately reflect the time period but that's still no reason to limit the game down. And from what im picking up from people I know and the two MP games my firewall would actually let me play is that the "tactics" so far consist of spamming mortars and line infantry, never knew that was the tactic of the day. Oh and when I say spam, I mean spam. There is also an incredibly low number of maps which limits game play further and again takes out diversity.

And before you ask why would you buy it I purchased the game for the SP and MP. I'm not saying the MP is bad I'm just stating it lacks the diversity of previous total war games. I can tell you right now that by taking away the feature of unique unit builds for certain factions your really slashing the tactical depth on half. After all, who's really interested in playing another battle on province where enemy camps on a hill with 5 mortars?

[PanzerJaeger]

And that would be a step back to what, 1999? You get all these people ranting and raving about how great shogun was but for someone who likes to see the continuous development of games why on earth would I want that?

All the Shogun engine needed to bring it up to date was a graphical overhaul. The gameplay was far superior to anything CA has put out since.

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est - no pointless discussions please - Andres.

[Monarch]

To my understanding, wasnt Shogun like this?

This game acurately reflects the time period. If you don't like it, why would you buy it?
.

I'm looking for a game, not a historical reenactment.

[tgi01]

I ve played some ranked battles , and you receive and lose points when you win or loose ...

but i have no idea how to access the info online .... and havent found any refernces to it so far ...

so there is ranking data somewhere but ...

weird ...

Im only hosting ranked battles with no mortars right now its easier to get decent opponents ...

TGI

[Monarch]

Monarch, what do you find lacking in the game?

My issues are different to Baz's, in that they mainly focus on the lobby/network rather than gameplay, As someone who cba with the competitive side anymore I think the game play is pretty fun (except of course for bs mortars, my ally had his general sniped literally after 10 seconds of play earlier. Grenadiers are a joke too.) Keep in mind though I've played a 2v2 and two 4v4s...I'm sure as (or if) I play more I'll find some issues.

The main issue is the online system, lobby, coding or w/e it is is absolute trash. Had a group of four people today on teamspeak ready to play some games. One cannot join any games unless I host, then he gets booted if people join. Weirdly, I can't join his games. The other two cannot join each others games, they can join my game and be in the same game that way. Not all the time though, sometimes they fail to join. It also takes 15 minutes plus to get a 4v4 going, which bring me to my next point...why the bloody hell isn't there a 3v3 map? Also tried a 2v2, one time as soon as we finally go a game we got a desync error. Next issue is I can't find a list of people online and theres certainly not a lobby chat, please don't suggest steam groups, thats a work-around to a problem, it's not a good alternative. I mean are CA just trying to annoy people or they just that lazy? All four of us regularly play games online btw, why is Total War's system so absolutely terrible.

Edit: Just had another game. Crashed after about 10,15 minutes. Was just about to uber double team the frenchies. lulz.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Tibilicus
I echo the limitations. Whilst I still can't play due to steam and my firewall being stubborn as I can tell it's going to be limited by seeing there is only a maximum of what, 8 infantry units? It's simply limiting game play to the same tactics as well as creating the same generic army builds.

Take Rome and BI for example, you had a range of factions and units each varying to such a degree that it created dynamics in the tactical game play. For example a faction like Lombardy would be a threat because of their armour piercing axemen, you would then have to change your tactics to adapt to that faction. For example you couldn't use your usual Saxons army as you would get eaten alive, you would have to adapt and change. Bear in mind this example might be a bit outdated as Rome/BI was a while back and my memory is vague.

Anyway you get my point, limiting the variation in factions and units makes for awfully similar game play and takes out a huge tactical side to the game. I'm all for making things balanced but that shouldn't mean cutting things down.

Playing a bit longer with *generic* factions and army builds might prove more fun than you ve thought - i dont think that the tactical gameplay is limited, rather the gameplay of *matching army selection* is. They are not the same thing in my book. You might be surprised that the *generic* can give rise to the *diverse* if you give it sometime with an open mind.

Originally posted by Monarch
I'm looking for a game, not a historical reenactment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_total_war

It says *its a real time tactics and... computer game* so i guess you got the right thing, and from what you say it seems you like it already.

[Wolf_Kyolic]

My issues are different to Baz's, in that they mainly focus on the lobby/network rather than gameplay, As someone who cba with the competitive side anymore I think the game play is pretty fun (except of course for bs mortars, my ally had his general sniped literally after 10 seconds of play earlier. Grenadiers are a joke too.) Keep in mind though I've played a 2v2 and two 4v4s...I'm sure as (or if) I play more I'll find some issues.

The main issue is the online system, lobby, coding or w/e it is is absolute trash. Had a group of four people today on teamspeak ready to play some games. One cannot join any games unless I host, then he gets booted if people join. Weirdly, I can't join his games. The other two cannot join each others games, they can join my game and be in the same game that way. Not all the time though, sometimes they fail to join. It also takes 15 minutes plus to get a 4v4 going, which bring me to my next point...why the bloody hell isn't there a 3v3 map? Also tried a 2v2, one time as soon as we finally go a game we got a desync error. Next issue is I can't find a list of people online and theres certainly not a lobby chat, please don't suggest steam groups, thats a work-around to a problem, it's not a good alternative. I mean are CA just trying to annoy people or they just that lazy? All four of us regularly play games online btw, why is Total War's system so absolutely terrible.

Edit: Just had another game. Crashed after about 10,15 minutes. Was just about to uber double team the frenchies. lulz.

Hmm weird. Actually TW series after MTW are known to have perfect MP. CA fails this time?

[Andres]

Hmm weird. Actually TW series after MTW are known to have perfect MP. CA fails this time?

Some people prefer STW/MTW over the newer totalwar instalments, other people prefer the newer instalments over STW/MTW.

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est

Let's not derail this thread to a pointless discussion about tastes and preferences.

[Wolf_Kyolic]

I was reffering to the HORRIBLE MP experiences after MTW. Not the game itself which is a whole different story.

[Mars]

Some people prefer STW/MTW over the newer totalwar instalments, other people prefer the newer instalments over STW/MTW.

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum est

Let's not derail this thread to a pointless discussion about tastes and preferences.

This is an interesting point.

Also interesting is, that people ask for more units, "since its so limited".
Very nice ;)

CA did learn, after 8 years, that they are not able to balance 30+ units. What is the use of having 30 different units (or even more), when u barly use them?!? In the end u saw maybe 10-12 different units beeing used in comp. Setups. This said, u was always somehow down to a small amount of units, since it was the strongest....

To have many units, just open the door for inbalance and exploits, which has to be fixed and therefore create more time needed to work it out.

We asked many years, for restricted amounts of money (logical, since u can only balance it for a certain amount of money), we asked for a smaller unitbase and so on.

A Ladder we asked as well, it can be cheated, we know it, but the egothingy is important for playerculture, drag new player in, force people into 1v1´s and so on.

MP-Campaing was asked many times, in 2000 they already said, that there would be a MP-Campain for STW, which never happend. Having a MP-Campain, based on the SP-Campain, wont help at all.
Who will really play that? It will take forever and once someone kinda had a big loss, he will give up on it. In the end u never will finish Campain´s. It wont be interesting for outside people.

Maybe they surprise us and bring us a cuttet campaing, which can be played in a short time...who knows.

bout the chat and lobby. Steam gives the possibility to have the private chatrooms and gatherings that was asked for by the veterans of shogun during the whole mtw/vi-era so that is very good I think. You can set up a game, chat with the selected people you want to play with and host and invite only these people.

As i already posted in another tread. Yes, that we did ask and actual i like Steam as it is. I dunno whats wrong with it. Ofc i can imagin the use of a Lobby, where u can kinda advertice some things or roleplay, but for the game and playing i cleary dont need a lobby.


Koc