Yes 42 53.16%

No 30 37.97%

Gah! 7 8.86%

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last

Not quite.

I never bought ETW and M2TW was a major frustration for me.

I played Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Opposing Fronts, then Cossacks II (MUCH better than ETW - which I tried but never actually bought), and now I am going back to Mount and Blade (unbelievable game).

Eventually, I plan on going back to Europa Barbarorum though. The first one. I may try Sins of the Solar Empire. Also, I already have Hearts of Iron II and EUIII (both with all the expansions). Eventually, after reading the whole manual and scouring through the official forum, I will tackle the two games.

Reply

I still play EB and vanilla Rome from time to time. Also am trying to get through M:TW but it bores me (I never was a fan of the Medieval setting). Didn't get E:TW.

Reply

Nope, haven't played in about 7-8 months and probably never will again. ETW was the end of the line for me on TW games. Paradox own my soul now for strategy games.

Reply

Nope. Bought ETW back in April, hated it, haven't played any TW since.

Reply

I'm a recent Paradox convertee. Currently playing various saves in Hearts of Iron 3 (Which is said to be worse than II, but serves me alright), Europa Universalis 3, and Victoria: Revolutions.

I don't see myself getting EU:Rome, any time soon, althought Crusader Kings sounds interesting.

And, like many others, I am waiting for EBII eagerly.

Reply

Lol so much hate for ETW.

Reply

Nope.

ETW will probably be the last total war game I play. To many high hopes and broken promises.

Reply

What's going to make EBII an improvement over EB? I'm sure it'll be a great mod, as the first EB was, but won't it still have to deal with CA's underlying game? Is MTW2 improved in some key ways that will make for an improved game?

CR

Reply

As you say they will always have to deal with the hardcoded limitations of the core game, however in terms of the campaign M2 has a number of extra features that can add to the game if they are intgrated with how the AI plays, the rosters etc. From a modding perspective they mean poential.

As far as the battlefield is concerned balance and challenge can be achieved within what the game has to offer, as they did with EB - and as other mods did such as the MP semi official balance mod by CA and the Celtiberos clan for kingdoms (Retrofit).

Vanilla releases lack in optimasation in both the campaign and battlefield maps as well as in binding the two. Mods can always achieve far better results in these areas through extensive playtesting and feedback and longtimes of development that vanilla releases lack.

Reply

I still play STW and MTW, but only very sporadically. I'll play for a 3-4 hour chunk, and then not again until a week or two later. I've been planning to fire up a new MTW campaign as Aragon this last week, but haven't actually gotten around to it yet. (Busy busy at work; little time to game on actual workdays, and have been spending time with friends on my rare days off.)

Empire sickened me to the point that I'm ashamed for having purchased it in the first place. The era holds little interest for me, but I was lured in (yet AGAIN) by CA's lies promises of a vastly revamped & improved strategic/diplomatic AI. Unless/until this (the AI) is truly fixed -- and there's no way in hell I'm forking over another $50.00 for Napoloeon the new patch -- it will stay uninstalled and in one of my storage boxes down in the basement.



So....Gah!

Reply

I don't really play PC games that much now, where I do it's usually a Paradox game.

Reply

Hmm, everybody keeps mentioning Paradox. Could this solve my dry spell?


I have played Europa Universalis (I? II? Don't remember). The first week I thought it was the greatest game I had ever played. Then boredom set in quickly. The game lasts too long, doesn't really go anywhere.

Should I give it another go? Which one out of the series is best?

What of their other titles? Is that WWII game any good?

Reply

I like EUII. The major countries are a bit too easy though. Try brandenburg, you'll have to start out with diploannexing the german city states and then you'll butt heads with the very powerful france and austria.

Reply

My favorite is Crusader Kings, in the EU II engine (the "2D", "old" engine). The game and its community are alive currently.

It is a strange mixture of elemnts the SIMS and a grand strategy game. Typical of Paradox, it takes a little investigation and getting used to to find the right strings to pull and understand how things work and how does that affect the gameplay. Again typically of Paradox, the game lacks a concrete set of goals although there is a "Victory points meter".

The best parts of the game is the combination of Roleplaying and Strategy, that unlike most strategy games allows you to play in unorthodox, unoptimal ways. Also because you can set your own goals, once you understand how the game works, you can play for them and see history unfold in front of your eyes.

The simulation of the societal/political aspects of the middle ages is more than decent and really well done. Combat is typically of PI again, abstracted - actually this was teh major thing that kept putting me off in the beginning, everytime there was a battle going on, i was foaming to... get in the battle map in person, being a typical MTW player

However, once i saw the game for what it was, i had great fun with it - playing felt almost like semi-writing your own Novel - in particular while playing teh Batatzes Byzantine family in one game, it fely like i had written "The Sisters Karamazof" - really good times.

Just allow your self to slowly get into it, as the level of detail is at first overwhelming.

Reply

HoI3 gives an unnerving advantage to the major players, Germany, the US, Japan, the Soviets, and Britain. Everyone else simply gets rolled over in a month.

Sadly, I've never succeeded in keeping the Germans out as the French. Even in the odd game where they don't bother going through Belgium, you can't even muster enough men for the Maginot Line.

I believe HoI2 is a bit more lenient, since you aren't limited by certain game mechanics in research.

Of course, typical of all Paradox games, they require a few hours of hair-pulling frustration, fruitless searches across their forums, and utter shock when you somehow disband half your army by not stroking your mouse wheel correctly.

Reply

I am sure they will tweak that. Paradox is usually (although not always) good about fixing such flaws. Not to mention, I would think their game is, from the programming point of view, much simpler than TW. If not, then a mod will fix it.

Reply

no not really. updating my computer to keep up is just too expensive

Reply

I may have lost interest in RTW vanilla, but I still play a lot of EB.

I would play MTW if I could get the thing working properly

Reply

Still playing EB and M2TW a lot... My Kart-Hadast campaign are just going nuttier... And currently also enjoy slaughtering Saracens with my Jerusalem-Templar legion...

I had bought ETW, but after some time playing and get frustated with the Road to Independence (British Hessians kill off most of my men everytime we meet and do the musket volley, and before my melee infantry close-in they often rout first... I HATE GUNS NOW!!!!), I decide that what suits me best is old style swordfighting and human kebab on pikes...

Reply

empires lags like hell (and its not that good) my disk driver dont work and none were installed other than medieval 1 total war, i installed ancient total war (a medieval 1 add on) and its easily on par with rome for enjoyment

Reply

I play hotseats and KOTF in MTW2 but I see nothing appealing in Empires... in fact I see just about everything that's wrong with PC gaming going on with ETW. Quite honestly even if they fix the worst of the problems, as they did before I bought MTW2, I probably will never pick it up.

Reply

it was ok, but honestly (despite lag) i never got into it like any other TW game, it just bored me and overall had no big effect on me AT ALL :P

Reply

I gave E: TW a try, played through the first mission of the RTI and it was so frustrating!! The companies didn't respond too well to very clear orders, and when zoomed out, the units look worse even then M: TW (blurry sprites that seem to hover from place to place), once I zoom in the detail is incredible. Frankly I'd sacrifice all the juicy graphical wonders so I could simply watch units from a distance that actually look like people.

It's so annoying I can't even enjoy any other aspect of the game.

Reply

Indeed - and in RTW/M2TW were just as bad if not much worse. Its indicative of what is emphasized ie visuals over gameplay. No sane "general" would prefer detailed 3D up close to the excelent sprites of MTW and the immaculate ones of STW. The ones of the latter featured amazingly well crafted detail. It is noteworthy that CA delayed the release of STW for a year in order to get the game in the best shape possible out. Compare this with the latest 3 releases; its sad really.

Reply

I've never been able to donate much of my time to TW, and haven't played at all in a while.

Reply

Voted no, because I keep forgetting to bring MTW to my dorm.

Reply

It's all well and good to have pretty 3-D models slugging it out, but the whole point of the game is to have battles with as many men on the field as possible. While you are distracted admiring the pretty graphics and little variations of your pikemen, the opposing army is running a knight unit around your backside. You should be paying attention to your lines and attack axis, not the eye candy. And don't the animations screw with the battle mechanics?

Reply

With enough frames, sprites can be bang on perfect and are ideal for viewing at distances. There is not point in 3D models in a game that really needs to be viewed from a distance in order to play it correctly. Also the removal of the 3D geometry from the units would free up more resources to have more detailed and even larger maps, buildings, vegitation etc.

-Edit: It's also worth noting that the 3D models, certainly in RTW and M2TW, look crap from a distance also (before they get far away enough to turn into sprites that is).

Reply

graphics is good, but its certainly not essential for me, rome and medieval 2 play and look great, but empires new engine is not one i like, plus it takes up far too much room considering its not that good, again 3d is nice but the first two games, shogun and med r still brilliant in my opinion and are more fun to play than empires even if the units arent as detailed.

Reply

A very large part of the technical appeal of M2TW is that it allows for ‘co-constraints’. E.g. if you use a 4 turns per year script, you can throttle recruitment based on ‘season’. Similarly you could have an ‘event counter’ which tracks, say, the faction leader's popularity with the masses that make up the ranks of his army; and if it exceeds or falls below certain thresholds you could have this reflected in the availability of units.

The really good thing here is that event counters are ‘persistent’ which means that they are part of the saved file; and this means that we can get rid of a lot of the witchcraft that goes on in deducing event counters from certain tracked settlements.

Reply

Page 2 of 3 First 12 3 Last