Happy with the decision made?

[edyzmedieval]

Are you Orgahs happy with the decision made by having a 18th century TW game? Says your pros and cons, and don't forget to vote.

[icek]

Well its better than rome 2 , but still i hoped for something asian oriented.

[BoyarPunk]

Count me in as a "Not Sure".

Not crazy about this period of history....but then again, CA couldn't keep retreading old ground (Shogun, Medieval, Rome) could they?

[Freedom Onanist]

Absolutely! I can't really think of an era that fits the TW game mechanics better.

In terms of the campaign map it was incredibly competitive and complex.

On the battlefield I have always had to suspend my disbelief when ordering a discrete "unit" of dismounted knights to charge in a neat formation. Even the R TW series had problems for me. The blobby barbarian formation just seemed a bit of a bodge as a game mechnic. The canon and musket era had units manoeuvring in precise formations, changing formations firing to precise drills etc...

Plus this whole time period is defining to the world as it is still experienced today. I know the Romans had a huge impact and all that, but it can be a bit remote. Look at the world around yo now and you can still see this period right there in front of you. The relics of empire, the new nations, the new politics. More than any Renaissance Humanism the Enlightenment's focus on Reason pulled us and the rest of the world out of the claws of medieval obscurantism - pity we seem to be slipping back towards it!

[NagatsukaShumi]

I must admit I am happy now I have had time to think about it, I am looking forward to this immensly.

Its brining in a new period of history where the tactics and huge battles still remain, had it gone towards a period any time after Napoleon I wouldn't be buying it.

Looks good, got EUIII to tide me over 'til it lands

[gardibolt]

Frankly, they should finish M2TW first. Another expansion wouldn't hurt either. Gunplay doesn't excite me in any event; give me guys hacking each other up with swords any day.

[NagatsukaShumi]

Frankly, they should finish M2TW first. Another expansion wouldn't hurt either. Gunplay doesn't excite me in any event; give me guys hacking each other up with swords any day.

CA in Australia are in charge of MTWII, its unlikely there will be anymore expansions for it but not entirely impossible, although they are most likely now starting TW 6.

[lars573]

I'm happy. This period of warfare is one of my personal favorites. Problem is it's also one of the least understood. There are so many prejuidices and incorrect preconceptions around musket warfare I feel ETW might take a bit of unfair flak.

[Husar]

I don't know, depends on how the game plays.

I can imagine it being an awesome, immersive game if done right, but if it will be too "accessible", it can also turn out very bad. From experience I'd have to say it should be decent and keep me playing for months, but you never know, I'm not even sure about getting Kingdoms, some things about it sound more limiting and not to my taste, which dragged my initial enthusiasm down quite a bit.

[Stuperman]

I'm very hesitant about this game, the impression I have is that with both sides lined up facing each other; 40% of the men on the field will be dead after one volly.

And I'll be interested to see how tacking is handled in ship battles.

[NagatsukaShumi]

I'm very hesitant about this game, the impression I have is that with both sides lined up facing each other; 40% of the men on the field will be dead after one volly.

And I'll be interested to see how tacking is handled in ship battles.

I am interested to see how you control the boats really.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While the era is right up my alley, nonetheless I'm unhappy with the choice. Total War has never been great at skirmishing and ranged combat. And now they take on the era where both are becoming dominant. Oh dear!

[Zenicetus]

I suppose they had to do this. It was the obvious next step, but I'm not too thrilled about it. On the plus side, I'm interested to see what they do with tactical naval combat. If they make it reasonably realistic, with points of sail and weather as *the* major tactical element, that will be a strong attraction for me. If it's just ships driving around like cars, feh.... I'll pass.

I'm also not that hot on gunpowder battles. This may be the prejudice and incorrect perception lars573 mentioned, but I see it as two armies lined up at a distance across an open field, with soldiers slowly dropping one by one until one army is left standing, and not that much maneuver. I know that not all historic battles played out like that, but a heck of a lot of them did. One of the big attractions of the TW series for me has been the up close and personal, hack and slash, melee combat with an interesting mix of units.

So I don't know.... I voted "no they should have done something else" because I'm not sure the naval combat will be good, and I'm not naturally attracted to this period. Fooey. I was really hoping for a Three Kingdoms game, or anything else without gunpowder.

[Lovasìjász]

While the era is right up my alley, nonetheless I'm unhappy with the choice. Total War has never been great at skirmishing and ranged combat. And now they take on the era where both are becoming dominant. Oh dear!

according to the prieview, new AI, new mechanics, new battlefield...I wouldn't be so judgmental , after seeing 3 images of boats shooting around.

[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.

[Bob the Insane]

I love it... I am a big fan of Sharpe and such but my historical reading of the time period is very lacking... Also as a Brit living in the US I have a definate interest in the revolutionary war period...

My only wish would be to bulk out the time scale a little to start say 1600 and run through to 1800... That should really drive the fast pace of technical advance into sharp focus...

[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.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

according to the prieview, new AI, new mechanics, new battlefield...I wouldn't be so judgmental , after seeing 3 images of boats shooting around.

Well, I have heard those premises before. What CA promises and what they can deliver tend not to be the same thing. I'm not writing it off, mind you. But and this point not being sceptical would be foolish. If I'm judgemental, seven years of reading CA's PR department musings made me so... or sumfink! Because what you are reading now isn't designed to inform you about the game features, it's function is to make you want it.

Oh well, it isn't all bad. Maybe this will make CA re-introduce rank morale bonuses. It's essential for musketry based warfare.
And I have to admit, the prospect of ship to ship actions are rather nice. Oh hell, who am I kidding? I'm going to buy it anyway, then probably moan about it afterwards!

[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

[Bijo]

[quote]Happy with the decision made?
Not necessarily happy. I am rather skeptical about how it will be.

Game publishers and developers have boasted many a time about the product they are to release. Often I observe all kinds of hyping and nice-looking texts describing an upcoming game, pictures too and trailers and other video clips. And then the product is finalized and released and what do I see? It didn't become the good superior game one would expect. A more critical mind would even be more disappointed (and I have a critical mind).

No, no... really... Happiness is out of the question for me. I will await its release, observe how other people talk about it, purchase it when its price has dropped, await patches, and THEN play. That is how skeptical I am. In fact, I think I will await the Gold edition or something like it that has it all in one box.


The decision that it features this certain era is in order I guess.

[alex9337]

Like many of the posters here, I, too, am not overly enamoured with gunpowder.

I have made the small mod to M2TW, changing the turns to be 1 turn = 6 months. This makes my generals age at the same rate as the game and also gives me the benefit of playing and winning a grand campaign long before gun powder units even become available. This is my preference.

I must admit I am intrigued by the addition of the naval battles. I trust it will be very cool.

The bottom line is, for me, that now I only play the TW games. For some reason the perfect mix of turn-based strategy on the campaign map, combined with the RTS element of real-time battle, is exactly what I have always been looking for in a computer game where I am going to spend (waste) countless hours of my time! I just can't seem to get into any other games right now. It has been this way for me since late 2005, when I first acquired Rome: Total War.

So, I voted "not sure". I will definitely buy it, there is no doubt about that. I am just not convinced that I will like the time period. I, too, like the "hack & slash" of melee combat with swordsmen, billmen, spearmen, etc.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Too early to tell. I like the period (or I do by the time the French and Indian War starts) but it will still boil down to how good of a game it is.

That means, among other things:

AI
Modability
Good sense of scale

I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...

[Odin]

Too early to tell. I like the period (or I do by the time the French and Indian War starts) but it will still boil down to how good of a game it is.

That means, among other things:

AI
Modability
Good sense of scale

I'm also a little concerned that the naval battles will become very tedious. They look nice and complex, but if I have to fight one every turn against rebels...

Pretty much what he said.

[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.

[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.