Empire 2 Total War

[LittleGrizzly]

Yes, yes and yes.

ETW has been, for the SP experience, my favourite total war. I think I enjoyed the battles and the multiplayer more in the earlier titles but for the campaign map ETW was my favourite.

The campaign map was huge, I liked little touches like being able to take territory in India without a diplomatic penalty. I loved the trade as well, started a new Dutch campaign recently in within a few turns I was making thousands in profit thanks to trade (and the trade zones)

I'd find myself supporting a protectorate taking territory whereas in other TW's I would usually race my own protectorate or ally to take it first for myself.

Whenever I have played another TW since ETW I end up feeling the campaign map is too small...

[edyzmedieval]

Indeed!

Now, we can only hope for an ETW2 or at least something similar, like Victorian TW...

[Risasi]

I think you've talked me into it. I sincerely hope that they make an Empire 2, but...

- Start at least a century earlier. I would like to see some Pike & Shot battle action. 30 years war, Ivan the Terrible and Romanov history of Rus. Heck, even the Mongols could make a guest star appearance.

- Borders. Considering the multiple buildings in a province of Empire, and the province/region system introduced in Rome 2, I believe that they need to re-think borders. I'd like to see a "soft" border system implemented. Did anyone ever play "Rise of Nations". The affects of tech and wonders, and other variables would "push" one's border against their neighbor and change the sphere of influence over the land mass. I think something similar would better represent how empires are built and wax and wane with time. Specifically France and their one province in the original Empire is what made me think of this. You still have a region capital, but then a "sphere of influence" pushing out from there.

- The follow up "expansion" standalone title could then be the Victorian age.

- This is a tough nut to crack, but they need to better represent asynchronous warfare. Think guerrilla tactics exhibited by indigenous tribes in the Americas and Africa (example: the general can hide also). This will be needed for the Victorian period.

If they flesh out these points I will definitely look into getting the game. If they don't, eh...I'll probably just stick to Empire

[edyzmedieval]

Starting a bit earlier can cause some problems as it would lengthen the game and overimpose two distinct warfare periods that have things in common but many differences. It might be hard for more inexperienced TW players to adapt as the time goes on.

Borders, agreed here, your proposal sounds quite interesting. It would make agents much more important. Although to be fair, they were fairly important in ETW, because of the penalties that came with having two universities in one single province.

[Risasi]

What if it were separated into an early campaign and a late campaign, a la Medieval 2? And one could pick to start around 1560-1600'ish for pike and musket and glimmering cuirassiers and knights, or the late campaign which starts around 1700 where it's mostly line infantry musket and cannon.

Then the Victorian Era could still be an expansion pack that would turn the base game into early, middle and late campaigns. That way one could play through from the 17th century into the 19th century if they wanted, or just pick a period.

---

I did some more thinking upon their province system. They need to somehow represent balkanization.

Perhaps through tweaking their existing horde system they could represent a rival faction uprising and creating their own capital? (Or dead factions re-emerging) Thus splitting a region into two.
With border push different towns and farms would fall under the direct control of a faction, but via this border push strength, resource buildings could change hands to another faction. I think this is an argument for many smaller regions and capital cities and border control being a separate layer on the map from the resource layer.

This would add another dimension to the game because the diplomatic aspects of having to deal with uprisings from within your territories would need to be controlled. It also creates scenarios for rebellions and civil wars. Do I crush them? Vassalize them? Leave them alone and build an alliance and trade with them?

I think this would give a more organic feel to how empires and their control change geographically over time.

[edyzmedieval]

Adding two different campaigns would require two different games in terms of content - the number of unique units is really important, at least to me, and ETW delivered in that regard only after you purchase all of the DLC Packs. In fact, the best game when it comes to unique units is Napoleon TW where the French are literally swamped with unique units and it's fantastic.

But you cannot sustain this level of content creation unless you have a team that's twice the size of the current one, to create at least 4-5 unique units for each faction to give the player the sense that they do in fact play in two different periods.

Quite hard.

[Risasi]

Yeah, you're probably right.

Well, if I'm just wishing for rainbows and unicorns I'm still hoping for an Empire 2, but like FotS they then follow up with a Standalone Expansion of the Renaissance Era, with Pike & Shot.

And then a Victorian Era expansion, a la RotS. Then I'd still like to see them tie all three together for the loooooong campaign play-thru, spanning all three eras? Maybe, just preserve the territories owned going into the next era. How about that? I'd pay extra for DLC expansions that do this.

That would get me what I want (and many others who liked Empire). It would let the guy who only wants to play one era do that.