
Originally Posted by
econ21
Hi UglyandHasty: I can't comment about the MP side of the game, but I have some sympathy with your "so close" conclusion on the SP game.
You may be a bit harsh on some specifics - for example, you can rush, but you don't have to, at least on normal with the longer victory conditions. And I don't think the map or research tree are too small - I would say they are both just right for the setting. I had to make some real decisions on tech and could not learn everything. I think the chokepoints on the MP are deliberate and help give a challenging strategic AI without resorting to an abstract Risk type map.
However, much as I admire the game objectively, I don't find myself drawn back to it. I guess I just prefer the scale of some of the earlier titles, even if they are less polished.
With a new computer, you might try Empire Total War. When it came out, I found it almost unplayable due to my computer and some teething troubles, now I find it is the TW game I play the most. I suspect the naval battles and near global strategic map need a good computer to shine. I'm also giving NTW another run around - as you might expect from the chronology, it's kind of an intermediate between ETW and STW2; it has some of the scale of the former and some of the polish of the latter. But I have no idea what they are like MP.
I guess I will go back to STW2 in due course - it's one of the best titles for the AI, is very well done overall and has some innovations (e.g. levelling general's and making agents fun) that bode well for the series.
Bookmarks