Napoleon TW - RTW Alexander

**ICantSpellDawg** · 08-29-2009, 15:27

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Honestly, I feel NTW is the very obvious choice to make.

The napoleonic era, unlike the ACW, or the colonial wars of the 17th/18th, is more or less well-known. Most people have heard the basic steps of the conflict. Plus, the amount of 'napoleonic freaks' or of mere enthusiasts all over Europe, from Spain to Russia, is simply crazy.

I'm not saying the game will be great, because I don't think it will, given how the TW serie becomes worse and worse with every new installement since MTW, but honestly, they would be stupid by not doing a Napoleonic TW at some point. True, I would rather have seen it as an extansion at first, but if they want to make it a whole new game, why not?

Worse and worse? This game is lightyears better than Medieval 2 in nearly all ways. The only major complaint that I have is that diplomacy seems to be getting more and more rudimentary. It has been broken since before I can remember, but this game brings Fail to an epic level.

There are simple things that they could do to make it better. Lend/lease of troops and assets is one - such as the lease a fort, ship, port or a few units for a set number of turns or outright sale/gift. They should create an ownership angle to protectorates, where special troops can be recruited, assets used and the land would count as yours for purposes of victory.

Additionally, "nation creation" is a must. Puppet governments taken from a pool of potential regional claimants has to exist in Napoleon TW since the theater was plagued with them during the Empire.

I want night and fog for land and naval battles - I don't see how this would hurt performance if it was thick enough.

Plus - break up the stupid native americans. They never had an empire powerful enough to direct the fall of the colonies in a uniform way. make them strong, but come up with a tribal system - maybe various portable powers like in barbarian invasion.

**Prussian to the Iron** · 08-29-2009, 16:52

^agree 100%

**Meneldil** · 08-29-2009, 16:55

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Worse and worse? This game is lightyears better than Medieval 2 in nearly all ways. The only major complaint that I have is that diplomacy seems to be getting more and more rudimentary. It has been broken since before I can remember, but this game brings Fail to an epic level.

ETW is lightyears worse than MTW or STW. I haven't played either ETW or M2TW for more than 10 hours, so yeah, I couldn't say which one is worse. In any case, neither of them is nearly as good as an unmodded, unpatched STW.

**Prussian to the Iron** · 08-29-2009, 18:02

I've never even played MTW or STW, so I really can't judge, but from screenshots I've seen, it just seems that M2 and RTW are better. E:TW I think is a better system than previous games (No need for diplomats, Spies and Assassins combined, You cannot simply roam around in everybodies territory without military access, etc.), but as with everything, there are cons as well. For example, I miss the assassination and spy movies from M2, and detest the A.I.'s limitless money train.

**Peasant Phill** · 08-30-2009, 13:33

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

I've never even played MTW or STW, so I really can't judge, but from screenshots I've seen, it just seems that M2 and RTW are better.

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

**johnhughthom** · 08-30-2009, 13:45

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

It may be odd, but it's a very common method of judging games nowadays, so common that we end up with beautiful, shallow games like ETW.

**Prussian to the Iron** · 08-30-2009, 21:49

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

you misunderstand; I mean that looking at gameplay aspects in screenshots (as well as graphics though) they don't seem to be as good.

Honestly, I think E:TW perfected alot of things, my favorite being the fact that lots of buildings are outside the cities, and you dont just click 'build' and get the same stuff in every region.

I think if they took E:TW and immediately made a Rome or Shogun out of the system (after flattening out a few bugs and improving the A.I. of course) it would be truly epic. I can't even imagine Rome's units, with E:TW's graphics. Add to that a probable EB III (since R:TW II wouldn't come out for several years I'm sure) and you have the epicest of epic wins.

of course I'm rambling on but whatevs.

**antisocialmunky** · 08-31-2009, 14:15

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

a probable EB III

I bet Foot would love to know the source on that official statement.

**Prussian to the Iron** · 08-31-2009, 14:41

lol.

You have to admit though that they will probably just keep churning 'em out for at least a couple more Total War's.

**Peasant Phill** · 08-31-2009, 19:31

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

you misunderstand; I mean that looking at gameplay aspects in screenshots (as well as graphics though) they don't seem to be as good.

I fail to see your point. Gameplay is something you experience, not just look at.
Sure, if it all worked perfectly ETW would be a lot better than MTW gameplay wise but that isn't exactly the case now is it. Hence you can't make an objective judgement about gameplay on screenshots alone.

**Prussian to the Iron** · 08-31-2009, 19:42

Originally Posted by Peasant Phill

I fail to see your point. Gameplay is something you experience, not just look at.
Sure, if it all worked perfectly ETW would be a lot better than MTW gameplay wise but that isn't exactly the case now is it. Hence you can't make an objective judgement about gameplay on screenshots alone.

once again, I have never played MTW, so I cannot judge, but E:TW is better than Rome, and vanilla Medieval 2. judging by that, I think its safe to say I (and many others) would prefer it to MTW or STW.

**Martok** · 08-31-2009, 19:33

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

you misunderstand; I mean that looking at gameplay aspects in screenshots (as well as graphics though) they don't seem to be as good.

A fair enough statement. I don't necessarily *agree* with it, but I can see why you might say that.

For all that STW and MTW remain my favorite games in the series, they wouldn't appeal to everyone. Graphics-wise, I couldn't care less -- indeed, in some ways, I actually find STW/MTW to be visually superior to their successors -- but I'll be the first to admit that Rome & Medieval 2 did incorporate some gameplay improvements, particularly with regards to the combat UI.

Originally Posted by Prussian Iron

Honestly, I think E:TW perfected alot of things, my favorite being the fact that lots of buildings are outside the cities, and you dont just click 'build' and get the same stuff in every region.

Indeed. I actually really like Empire's gameplay overall as well, what with all the improvements and streamlining CA has added. It's just that the AI and diplomacy are so gods-awful that for me, it breaks the game. If those things were fixed, however, this would probably become an instant classic that would forever stay on my hard drive.