Empire: Incomplete?

[Relic]

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).

[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.

[Relic]

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.

[ArtillerySmoke]

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.

[Subotan]

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.

[PBI]

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.

[JeromeBaker]

Was M/M as Great Britain.

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

[pevergreen]

Battle for Pourta Nouvo or something like that.

Its in the demo, its just hidden.

[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

[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.

[zarkis]

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).

[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.

[beatoangelico]

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.

[zelda12]

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.)

[Hooahguy]

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

[Mister V]

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).

[Monarch]

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