Empire: Incomplete?

[pevergreen]

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

CA did their homework

[Discoman]

"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.

[Belid Hagen]

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

[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

[Graphic]

"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.

[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

[Subotan]

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.

[Ishmael]

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)

[Subotan]

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

[Graphic]

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.

[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).

[Sir Beane]

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 .

[vladiator]

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.