Napoleon TW - RTW Alexander

[Nelson]

Bottom line - I'm not impressed. It's just a variation with a different period, more units, more campaigns, but the concept is basically the same.

Hasn't every Total War expansion done this? Different period, more units, more campaigns.

That's been their business model all along.

[Meneldil]

Honestly, I feel NTW is the very obvious choice to make.

The napoleonic era, unlike the ACW, or the colonial wars of the 17th/18th, is more or less well-known. Most people have heard the basic steps of the conflict. Plus, the amount of 'napoleonic freaks' or of mere enthusiasts all over Europe, from Spain to Russia, is simply crazy.

I'm not saying the game will be great, because I don't think it will, given how the TW serie becomes worse and worse with every new installement since MTW, but honestly, they would be stupid by not doing a Napoleonic TW at some point. True, I would rather have seen it as an extansion at first, but if they want to make it a whole new game, why not?

[HopAlongBunny]

I agree with Meneldil.

NTW is the obvious next step; even though it is a tough market to please.

CA could really fall on its face with this or hit a home run; the amount of research the "casual" Napoleonics gamers do is frightening, and they will expect any professional product to be accurate.

From a marketing perspective this has to be a separate game. The niche just would not respond to a TW product that was "just" an add-on imho.

[Beskar]

CA could really fall on its face with this or hit a home run; the amount of research the "casual" Napoleonics gamers do is frightening, and they will expect any professional product to be accurate.

Isn't this Napoleon guy an angry short dude that kept kicking everyone's behinds so much, they cried to the British, who sent the person who designed Wellington Boots to defeat him at the battle of Waterloo?

[Peasant Phill]

...CA could really fall on its face with this ...

I would welcome such an event. It could shock CA out of the comfortable position it is now and just maybe make them think about the shortcommings of their last games.

[Prussian to the Iron]

i dont mind having a napoleonic expansion, but i honestly wuld have been happier with a kingdoms-like mod, with napoleon, maybe the american civil war, an asian campaign, and an african campaign (asian and african obviously covering entire continents, with european settlers and native factions alike.)

[Discoman]

Yea, Kingdoms was a really good expansion.

I'm unsure if I'll buy Napoleon. Considering it has a grand campaign, that's a plus, but it removes theaters of America and India. This is semi-annoying because I really wanted the war of 1812 for America. Frankly I just wanted a fair campaign where I could play as America, the grand campaign for America in ETW is too short, unbalanced (Every other nation has full tech), and pretty hard (when France, Spain, Britain, Cherokee, and Iroquois all DOW on you)

I think N:TW should feature missions. ETW doesn't have any missions, which is annoying because there's an entire tab dedicated to it, but only 2-3 nations actually use it. I think the missions should reward the player for replicating actions Napoleon did, like attack this nation, or take this settlement.

How different is the unit roster from ETW anyway? Is it just different uniforms? Any new cannons?

[Durallan]

I would welcome such an event. It could shock CA out of the comfortable position it is now and just maybe make them think about the shortcommings of their last games.

I would find it hard to believe it could happen, if no major reviewer picked up on the AI's problems in ETW how will they pick them up now?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Honestly, I feel NTW is the very obvious choice to make.

The napoleonic era, unlike the ACW, or the colonial wars of the 17th/18th, is more or less well-known. Most people have heard the basic steps of the conflict. Plus, the amount of 'napoleonic freaks' or of mere enthusiasts all over Europe, from Spain to Russia, is simply crazy.

I'm not saying the game will be great, because I don't think it will, given how the TW serie becomes worse and worse with every new installement since MTW, but honestly, they would be stupid by not doing a Napoleonic TW at some point. True, I would rather have seen it as an extansion at first, but if they want to make it a whole new game, why not?

Worse and worse? This game is lightyears better than Medieval 2 in nearly all ways. The only major complaint that I have is that diplomacy seems to be getting more and more rudimentary. It has been broken since before I can remember, but this game brings Fail to an epic level.

There are simple things that they could do to make it better. Lend/lease of troops and assets is one - such as the lease a fort, ship, port or a few units for a set number of turns or outright sale/gift. They should create an ownership angle to protectorates, where special troops can be recruited, assets used and the land would count as yours for purposes of victory.

Additionally, "nation creation" is a must. Puppet governments taken from a pool of potential regional claimants has to exist in Napoleon TW since the theater was plagued with them during the Empire.

I want night and fog for land and naval battles - I don't see how this would hurt performance if it was thick enough.

Plus - break up the stupid native americans. They never had an empire powerful enough to direct the fall of the colonies in a uniform way. make them strong, but come up with a tribal system - maybe various portable powers like in barbarian invasion.

[Prussian to the Iron]

^agree 100%

[Meneldil]

Worse and worse? This game is lightyears better than Medieval 2 in nearly all ways. The only major complaint that I have is that diplomacy seems to be getting more and more rudimentary. It has been broken since before I can remember, but this game brings Fail to an epic level.

ETW is lightyears worse than MTW or STW. I haven't played either ETW or M2TW for more than 10 hours, so yeah, I couldn't say which one is worse. In any case, neither of them is nearly as good as an unmodded, unpatched STW.

[Prussian to the Iron]

I've never even played MTW or STW, so I really can't judge, but from screenshots I've seen, it just seems that M2 and RTW are better. E:TW I think is a better system than previous games (No need for diplomats, Spies and Assassins combined, You cannot simply roam around in everybodies territory without military access, etc.), but as with everything, there are cons as well. For example, I miss the assassination and spy movies from M2, and detest the A.I.'s limitless money train.

[Peasant Phill]

I've never even played MTW or STW, so I really can't judge, but from screenshots I've seen, it just seems that M2 and RTW are better.

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

[johnhughthom]

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

It may be odd, but it's a very common method of judging games nowadays, so common that we end up with beautiful, shallow games like ETW.

[Prussian to the Iron]

That's an odd thing to say. Sure graphically, RTW & M2TW are of course light years ahaed of STW and MTW. But I fail to see how you can judge gameplay, AI and immersion by looking at screen shots?

you misunderstand; I mean that looking at gameplay aspects in screenshots (as well as graphics though) they don't seem to be as good.

Honestly, I think E:TW perfected alot of things, my favorite being the fact that lots of buildings are outside the cities, and you dont just click 'build' and get the same stuff in every region.

I think if they took E:TW and immediately made a Rome or Shogun out of the system (after flattening out a few bugs and improving the A.I. of course) it would be truly epic. I can't even imagine Rome's units, with E:TW's graphics. Add to that a probable EB III (since R:TW II wouldn't come out for several years I'm sure) and you have the epicest of epic wins.

of course I'm rambling on but whatevs.

[edyzmedieval]

Hasn't every Total War expansion done this? Different period, more units, more campaigns.

That's been their business model all along.

Yeah, that was the business model, but the previous expansions brought something fresh to the genre. Viking Invasion was the best, they should learn from that experience.

[Owen Glyndwr]

I think that the fact that CA is omitting the colonies already shows a lack of concern for historical accuracy. Sure, most of Napoleon's conquests did occur in Europe proper. But a lot of things in America shaped out due to Napoleon's conquests. Remember that in addition to expanding through Europe, Nappy also had to deal with the Spanish colonies after deposing the Spanish monarchy and putting his brother (?) on the throne, in addition to what was left of the French ones. These colonies proved to be a constant thorn in his side with revolts such as the Haitian one. We can see this simply due to the fact that he was forced to sell the Louisiana territory to the States, because managing foreign colonies was more trouble than they were worth.

As for the British, a lot of their wealth and power came from their Foreign colonies such as in India.

I think it would be more interesting to include those realms. It would make playing as Napoleon more challenging. You could choose to follow Napoleon and sell off the colonies to the highest bidder to focus on Europe, or for added fun, hold on to them and try to make a multi-continental Empire as he originally desired.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah, that was the business model, but the previous expansions brought something fresh to the genre. Viking Invasion was the best, they should learn from that experience.

Mongol Invasion was best. Seriously AUTO DEATH GEISHAS and THUNDER BOMBERS were made of hilarity and win.

[econ21]

I was really hoping they were going to expand the grand campaign map, maybe make europe a bit more detailed, add africa, maybe complete off the rest of the america's (not sure how long it took to go from east - west coast) extend the grand campaign a bit, have an option to have historical revolutions or not, appearance of boney etc, at least for the grand campaign. The story campaigns don't overly thrill me lots, I'd rather play in a big world but I'll probably play it if I bought it.

I am glad they did not try to shoe horn the Napoleonic wars into ETW - it just would not fit. NTW needs more European provinces, more turns per year and America/India would add precious little. Personally, I think trying to play in a big world is part of what undermined ETW: the AI could not adjust.

How different is the unit roster from ETW anyway? Is it just different uniforms? Any new cannons?

Just different uniforms. The armies were rather standardised in terms of hardware, which had not changed much - if at all - from ETW.

ETW has too many types of cannon as it is:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=118988

However, troop "quality" in NTW should differ from ETW. The Prussians were no longer the top dogs, while English infantry was more pre-eminent. Quality should ideally wax and wane over the period. Prussian modernised after its defeat, while France suffered from its losses of veterans in Russia, Spain and elsewhere. Similarly, French leadership was markedly superior early on, but gradually nearly all factions found leaders who had learnt from Napoleon and could give him a run for his money.

[johnhughthom]

Viking Invasion was the best, they should learn from that experience.

They should learn from a game where the AI factions never went to war with each other? That said VI is the only vanilla CA game I bothered finishing a campaign with.

[Seyavash]

I have played all versions of TW except Alexander. I will say STW is still my all time favorite due to the excellent balance of gameplay and atmosphere. None of the later games have ever quite matched up in evoking the setting I have to say each version still improves on the prior ones.

I have never understood the dislike of MTW2. I found it quite enjoyable and there were a number of things that improved over the earlier versions besides graphics. For example, I like the opening up of the campaign map in RTW and the expansion to city/castle specialization in MTW2. It seems that alot of complaints are colored by disappointment in that each game never quite lives up to it's potential rather than being a bad product. I enjoy ETW despite the bugs as well though I will admit it is not my favorite period. And despite obvious flaws it is great to finally have actual naval battles.

Napoleon is definitely the most logical choice for an expansion though I am still unsure about its structure. I prefer an open grand campaign to story driven like Road to Revolution. If you want to do specific episodes expand the historical battle scenarios.

[antisocialmunky]

MIITW has epic bugs. The shield bug(shield was SUBTRACTED form defense), the 2 hander bugs, the peasant attack speed issues, the passive AI vs missiles, the horribly in city pathing. Kingdoms fixed pretty much everything though.

[Seyavash]

MIITW has epic bugs. The shield bug(shield was SUBTRACTED form defense), the 2 hander bugs, the peasant attack speed issues, the passive AI vs missiles, the horribly in city pathing. Kingdoms fixed pretty much everything though.

Ah ok. I got the gold edition so my experience was obviously better, though I believe the 2 hander issue was never quite fixed.

[A1_Unit]

The only problems I had in kingdoms were the city battles... but sieges are better in ETW.