Happy with the decision made?

[Ser Clegane]

Not sure - the chosen era was not particularly high on my wishlist (I wasn't so keen on gunpowder) - but I am certainly open to be convinved otherwise and the naval battles might be a very interesting addition.

I am likely to buy it if it turns out to be well done but I will probably wait a bit longer than for the previous installments to see how other people here like it.

Of course a new PC will also be required as mine is already 3.5 years old (but I was planning to get a new one next year anyway).

Bottomline: It's not a dream come true for me, but it's not a "no-no" either.

[The Internet]

I find it funny that they haven't even fixed MTW2 yet and they've already started something completely new with a totally new engine. Perhaps they should learn from their mistakes from Rome and MTW2 (and fix them) before they try something they've not dabbled in before.


Put me down as a no.

[Monarch]

I find it funny that they haven't even fixed MTW2 yet and they've already started something completely new with a totally new engine. Perhaps they should learn from their mistakes from Rome and MTW2 (and fix them) before they try something they've not dabbled in before.


Put me down as a no.

M2 was made by CA oz, afaik ETW is being developed by the UK studio they developed stw, mtw and rtw.

[The Internet]

M2 was made by CA oz, afaik ETW is being developed by the UK studio they developed stw, mtw and rtw.

RTW had just as many bad bugs as MTW2. TBH i don't have high hopes for ETW, the only reason i still play Rome is because teams like RTR and EB have done a fantastic job in improving the game so much and it is the only reason Rome has become as popular as it is IMO.

[Noir]

The era is just as good as any pre WWI - in fact with all this unecessary gunpowder and artillery in MTW2 it was sort of predictable; commercially wise too (to stand above the various competitors -EUIII & AoE3&the Lordz? - a needed change of pace for CA - and the instrumental inclusion of the US as a playable faction i would guess). Its the implementation though that will count for me.

When i compare the status of vanilla MTW and RTW (and MTW2 altough i havent played this that much) with their mods, i find that the vanilla games are not fine tuned at all and the engine's potential and gameplay balance are not really explored/pursued by CA it self (they are by modders).

Of course this is natural considering all the bugs that the games contain upon release especially since RTW; CA is busy ironing them out and also making new games with apparently even more features than they can reasonably handle upon release as experience suggests.

Probably the main debate will be over "how tactical gunpowder warfare can be" and the like, but this is not the point as far as i am concerned; we know that tactics mattered then. The point is how the game engine will cope and how gameplay will be, be it against the AI or in mp, and this will not be revealed before release.

A disheartening thing is the continuing abundance of features and the all important "wow" seeking. Aren't people tired with all this marketing style promises, flashy screenshots and the Mike Simpson cliche that "this will be the best Total War game ever" in every announcement of a brand new release?

MTW2 screenshots looked (and look) just as impressive as the ones they've been released for ETW, yet the dynamic visual impression with the spasmodic animations and the dissapearing and reappearing cavalry lances made the whole look like the annual dance of a school for kids with special needs with Harry Houdini as a guest to me - let alone a battle - so i'll keep my jaw and reservations firmly in their place until i actually see the whole thing at work.

Another non-measurable feature is immersiveness, that elusive quality that indicates originality of atmosphere, or absence of it. Again, experience suggests that little do impressive screenshots and CGs have to do with that. Past RTW CA has treated the cinematic factor of their games in a litteral way; however as it was indicated countless times by many the whole feels "gamy", in comparison to their older games. I doubt that ETW will take a different approach on that too, although i hope i'm proved wrong.

Having said all this, the game has potential to be great with the naval battles adding a new element of depth to it.

However it can also (more probably, experience says) be the usual conquest rush that CA favors in the campaign game, with poor AI, meaningless diplomacy and plenty of new bugs that the community can discover, discuss, argue about and a lack of balance on the battlefield for the hundred new units and unit types.

I guess the mp part at least will be surely great since an "original" suggestion thread has been opened in the .com. Obviously all that feedback and suggestions by people like Yellow Mellon or of the old mp community in the Jousting Fields that made thread upon thread of suggestions and plenty of modifications to show their ideas at work weren't "original" enough.

Many Thanks

Noir

[Hoplite7]

I was hoping for R2:TW to be honest. Lining people up with guns doesn't seem at all very interesting to me, it's kind of like having an all-foot archer battle in M2:tw. I prefered the more exotic feel to Rome as well, variety of units and situations. (elephants, chariots, barbarians ect)

I'll still buy it because I'm a sucker for Total War series... but I wish they didn't waste the Alexander and fall of Rome periods on expansions.

[Slug For A Butt]

I was hoping for R2:TW to be honest. Lining people up with guns doesn't seem at all very interesting to me, it's kind of like having an all-foot archer battle in M2:tw. I prefered the more exotic feel to Rome as well, variety of units and situations. (elephants, chariots, barbarians ect)

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Buy it? No.
Wait for it to drop in price until it comes free in a pack of cereal? Yes.
Install it once it comes free with my cornflakes? Depends what nasties are included with the software.

[adembroski]

While I never would have guessed this was the direction they'd go, I am not surprised by it. It feels very natural, and I can't help but think it is the right direction to go with Total War right now.

The big question is, how far can they go in this direction? I'm not so much worried about this game- playing around with gunpowder units in Medieval has whetted my appetite enough- as what's next.

So what is next? Another rehash... Rome II, Shogun II? Personally I find the Shogun era utterly uninteresting. Someone with a very poor understanding of historical warfare said he has to suspend his disbelief when ordering a well formed group of cavalry around the battlefield, but in Shogun this is absolutely the case. As for Rome, I certainly wouldn't object to a redo, but it wouldn't be high on my priority list either.

My great hope for the Total War series is that eventually it will take the giant leap from historical combat to incorporate, even at an optional level, fantasy warfare. This would be best done as a license... Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings. While I love historically accurate warfare, there's an element of diversity of forces you can't get when everyone's human.

[Matt_Lane]

While I never would have guessed this was the direction they'd go, I am not surprised by it. It feels very natural, and I can't help but think it is the right direction to go with Total War right now.

The big question is, how far can they go in this direction? I'm not so much worried about this game- playing around with gunpowder units in Medieval has whetted my appetite enough- as what's next.

So what is next? Another rehash... Rome II, Shogun II? Personally I find the Shogun era utterly uninteresting. Someone with a very poor understanding of historical warfare said he has to suspend his disbelief when ordering a well formed group of cavalry around the battlefield, but in Shogun this is absolutely the case. As for Rome, I certainly wouldn't object to a redo, but it wouldn't be high on my priority list either.

My great hope for the Total War series is that eventually it will take the giant leap from historical combat to incorporate, even at an optional level, fantasy warfare. This would be best done as a license... Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Wheel of Time, Lord of the Rings. While I love historically accurate warfare, there's an element of diversity of forces you can't get when everyone's human.

Although I wouldn't discount CA doing a fantasy title somewhere down the line I think its unlikely to be the next installment. CA tend to only develop a new gaming engine every other title. As ETW has the new engine the next game will have to recycle this so gunpowder and naval conflict are likely to be present. I don't think they can advance the series much further in time as the introduction of repeating rifles and small unit tactics doesn't suit the TW engine. My money would therefore be on a Pike & Musket period, from about where M2TW leaves off and ETW starts.

[Fisherking]

So you are guessing on something with the 30 years war then. That doesn't seem to have that wide an appeal except to Grognods. What ever they do I am betting on something a bit more popular in history though I doubt they will add air war if the navies work well that would be a simpler add on I think...

[Quickening]

Im totally uninterested in this time period to be honest but I can't blame CA for going there. It was inevitable. I once thought I could make myself appreciate the time period with Europa Universalis 3 but although I love that game the time period just doesn't appeal to me.

Id absolutely love to see Rome redone. However Im a bit concerned by the fact that agents as characters on the campaign map are apparently being phased out. Maybe Im a freak, but I love the micromanagement.

I once liked the idea of a fantasy Total War but not anymore. The market is just clogged with boring, uninspired fantasy and despite being a massive fan, Im really sick of it.
Would hate for the Total War series to go into the modern era to, or for them to do any kind of Asian Total War just because again, I have no interest in them.

To be honest, if CA went and did all the Total War games I don't want, I wouldn't care. I still have Rome and Med 2 *Hugs games*


EDIT: Actually I got Kingdoms yesterday and I LOVE it. Maybe this kind of thing could be the way forward. Maybe we could have smaller campaigns focussed on warring Greek states and such. Id love that. Like it or not, "episodic gaming" will be the future, that's my prediction.

[Kings Hand]

I'm happy about the decision, my intrest in the era was piqued after playing ntw2, but the chance to play a colonial era campaign sounds great.
I do hope they make the naval battles into another complete tactical element, with wind direction etc having the necessary effect on the battle. The thought of a unleashing a devastating broadside into your enemy followed by boarding and a melee on her decks does sound good.

Thats a yes.

[The Stranger]

hope they wont rush it

[Martok]

Not sure - the chosen era was not particularly high on my wishlist (I wasn't so keen on gunpowder) - but I am certainly open to be convinved otherwise and the naval battles might be a very interesting addition.

I am likely to buy it if it turns out to be well done but I will probably wait a bit longer than for the previous installments to see how other people here like it.

Of course a new PC will also be required as mine is already 3.5 years old (but I was planning to get a new one next year anyway).

Bottomline: It's not a dream come true for me, but it's not a "no-no" either.

Well put, Ser Clegane; you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth.

Two big strikes against this game (for me) is that I have only a mild interest in the historical period covered, plus I'm not a big gunpowder afficianado -- I don't even care for the late Medieval period all that much because of the introduction of cannon.

For me, my getting the game will depend on a couple key things: How well the naval battles turn out, and how good the AI and diplomacy is this time around. I'm admittedly not terribly optimistic, but I'm not going to just write off Empire either. Right now, I'm a "maybe" and leaning towards "no".

[TinCow]

Yes, simply because it promises a bit of change. I liked the evolution from the STW/MTW engine to the RTW/M2TW engine. I expect that CA will make similarly great leaps to the third gen engine.

Now I am just praying that the AI doesn't get left behind in the jump.

[ixidor]

Actually, very happy. They had already 2 games about the medieval era, as from Rome. The asian part was also aboarded. Also, i think this game can be awesome since you have the possibility the dominate the world, literally! I mean, we don't know it but, if you can dominate all europe, north africa, west asia and most of america, why not to have a world map?

Also:

http://www.shacknews.com/screenshots...4635&id=104099

A love this graphics :)

[iblewafuse14]

I'm not sure... I would've liked to have seen a new game around like "Ancient Total War" where the focus isn't on Rome as much, maybe more like Grecce and East Asia, Would be nice to have factions that had great navaies such as the Greeks, Persians, Phoenicians, would be great to have triemes ramming into an enemy ship whiling slowly moving back to let it sink

[TB666]

Since I love gunpowder units and loves the NTW1 mod for MTW1, this era fits me like a glove.
And to make it even more special, naval battles.
I couldn't be more happier with this.

[Furious Mental]

Finally, pantaloons!

[Csargo]

I'm happy with it, but I would hope that they would have extend the timeline a little.

[christof139]

Too short a time period for this new game. It could have been extended to the ACW etc. with Ironclads, stopping at about 1870 or so.

Seems like a Pirates game in effect, or Great Age of Sail or whatever the older and good game was named.

Also seems like a quickie, a game made with a new engine just to see how it will be accepted, then maybe in the future other time periods will be covered such as the Ancients through Renaissance eras.

I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.

Chris

[fenir]

As most of you know me, I am most certainly not likely to mince words if I think the game mechanics have let us down.
But I think many here (and understandably after M2TW), are a little wary of the claims made by the marketers.
As we all know and understand marketing is about...Ok put nicely, propaganda.
Hence the importance of coders, and the game developers information more than anything else.

But, lets not jump the gun.
The inclusion of Naval battles is certainly a step forward. It is something we asked for(and hoped for) way back in MTW.
It was almost a forgone conclusion that CA would progress the time line due to the inclusion of Cannon and Musket in M2TW, by precedence CA try out the toys in a prep, within each previous game.
And no different here.
But we must deviod ourselves of our current opinions and focus instead upon the developing new release.
Perhaps, there is still time to help with what we want with regards to the new game?
As CA release information, lets us try and build upon it with regards to information they provide, and the information we otherwise feel needs to be included.
With ETW I hope to see some basic improvements, such as increase in tradible goods, with the ability to mod the number and types.
I would like to see the return of Titles. As in MTW attach to the name, and ability to award titles to generals et cetera... of Different ranks, exempli gratia; Knight (sir), Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marques, Dukes, and maybe even Princes. All with the ability to preceed in lineage.
I would like to see and end to adoption in the family tree. It was way over used and disfunctional by comparision with MTW family tree imho.
I do like the generals part tho. But not including the generals marriage to a princess and right to claim family in succession.
But, perhaps we can have Families of Lords, that as a lord dies, his son takes the titles and still provides service to the empire.
This way allowing the royal family help in the governance of the empire.
Choosing a faction heir, make it primus genetia as in salic law. With the ability to change it if we want? As in RTW.
Make the unit card have a button on it, that can allow us to award titles or view and change other options. to ease the micro mangement.
I hate having to reproduce spies inter alia. Unless they are killed.

So let us work towards making the imporvements of this new game, and hope we are taken note of by the powers that be.
So if not already, lets start a thread in poin form on what we would like to see, and ideas underneath on how we think in the current format, these can be achived.


sincerely

fenir

[Zenicetus]

Too short a time period for this new game. It could have been extended to the ACW etc. with Ironclads, stopping at about 1870 or so.

Seems like a Pirates game in effect, or Great Age of Sail or whatever the older and good game was named.

Sure, but that makes sense if they're actually doing a fairly realistic sail-based naval combat engine. The AI has to be designed to work with those tactics. Once you get into Ironclads you're in the age of Steam. You can point the ship in any direction, and wind-based tactics don't matter. It's a whole other tactical situation, which implies a different tactical AI to develop.

I am still waiting for an Ancients adn Medieval naval Warfare game, and it shouldn't be hard at all to produce. That would be great and a lot more fun methinks, at IMHO, and I m also waiting on a mid 1800's to about 1870 or 1880 era naval game encompassing the ACW and Ironclads.

I'd go for that Ancient/Medieval naval game too. The boarding/ramming action would be fun, and we'd get to play with Greek Fire! Probably more of a niche market thing though, so I understand why they did this as their first naval combat engine. If they get this right (I'm naturally skeptical but I hope I'm proven wrong), then it can be easily adapted to an expansion or later game with steam powered navies, or a mix or sail and steam. Internal combustion powered ships are much easier to model than sailing ships and tactics.

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm happy with the decision made. Although if i'd had it my way, i would have selected 1900 - 1945 as the new time period. I personally believe that there is a chance for good gameplay there, regardless of what some of you think of the period.

[Whacker]

Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

[Csargo]

Might as well wade in here. I voted no, because I find the period of time between 1500 and 1900 to be exceedingly boring. Not remotely interested. Further, IF I do decide to buy the next game, it will be due to 1. CA getting back to their roots and making solid strategy games, not arcade-fests designed for the graphic-centered ADD crowd, and 2. due to the opinions of a number of discerning people on these boards whose opinions I value and trust. CA's got to earn my business back.

I never understood you...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Will Boney/Nappy era be covered as well?

[Kraggenmor]

I'm looking forward to it. I think the choice of the "Wooden ships & Iron Men" era is spot on in light of the decision to finally add actual naval combat.

I look forward to fighting the Amercian revolutionary war.

[Akeichi Mitsuhide]

im gonna love this game alright. Just hope its the MIITW engine and not a new one(i need a new pc if its a new engine).

[Jack Lusted]

Empire will be using a brand new engine.