Empire: Total War - FUCK. YOU.

[weemadando]

Empire: Total War - Elite Units

Seriously. $20. TWENTY FUCKING US DOLLARS! For six units. SIX! SIX FUCKING UNITS!

Money fucking grubbing. That's all I can say.

Oh yeah, and the "package" deal they're offering. It's Empire: TW and Elite Units for the amazing discount of $0.00, fuck, I'm there. And I don't even get a cloth map and poorly painted figurine!

[Stark]

This kind of thing isn't even unusual; check out Deadspace, where you can buy better guns, and Endwar where you basically buy upgrades and better units.

It's just amusing in this case becasue nobody is going to play vanilla anyway, because it's going to be needlessly restricted, broken and unbalanced.

[Dominus Atheos]

It's just amusing in this case becasue nobody is going to play vanilla anyway, because it's going to be needlessly restricted, broken and unbalanced.

So it's going to be exactly like every other Creative Assembly game that's ever come out?

[wautd]

20 bucks for 6 lousy units or wait a few weeks untill the first free mods come out. Hmm, what to do indeed...

[Vendetta]

Seriously. $20. TWENTY FUCKING US DOLLARS! For six units. SIX! SIX FUCKING UNITS!

It's coming up as £5 here. Which is still more than I'd pay for a Not Very Special Really Edition, but still a lot less than US$20. Are you sure it's not giving you a local currency version, or does Steam really have a 200% Being In Australia Tax?

[Flash]

It's $20 US for us. I just checked. Who knew we get raped on game prices?

Oh wait, everyone.

The price point isn't really that surprising when you look at what we've been paying for game for what, 20 YEARS.

[Enigma]

Bah, it is only for those who get Empire through Steam. I'll be fine with the regular game I'll buy from an actual game store.

[Thanas]

The developers once more show they know little of history. HMS Victory being the most-armed warship with 104 cannons at a time when the navies had ships operating that had over 120 cannons and were thousand tons heavier?

I think I'll wait with buying that game until it has arrived at the bargain bin. By that time, the mod community should have fixed it....

[Vympel]

None of the "elite" units are either:-

a: Anything from the Russian Empire; or

b: Sharpe's Rifles.

So I'm not terribly worried. I'll probably get the collector's edition anyway, I'm a spendthrift that way.

[ray245]

The developers once more show they know little of history. HMS Victory being the most-armed warship with 104 cannons at a time when the navies had ships operating that had over 120 cannons and were thousand tons heavier?

I think I'll wait with buying that game until it has arrived at the bargain bin. By that time, the mod community should have fixed it....

It is funny to see the fact that CA decides to hire modders from the total war community, and browse total war forums for a while now, while ignoring Historical accuracy for game play issue.

[Vendetta]

What? Game balance taking precedence over historical accuracy in a videogame? Shock horror!

[Darth Wong]

I'm really tired of the people who whine that a game isn't 100% historically accurate. I'm looking to play a game, not take a fucking history lesson. I don't want it to be completely ridiculous (Napoleonic tanks, for example, would be too much), but yeah, entertaining gameplay takes precedence over strict historical accuracy.

I'm more concerned about system requirements, since I don't know what they are. $20 doesn't mean shit to me.

[Vanas]

The developers once more show they know little of history. HMS Victory being the most-armed warship with 104 cannons at a time when the navies had ships operating that had over 120 cannons and were thousand tons heavier?

To quote the website, 'Lord Nelson's 104 gun flagship is one of the most heavily armed ships of the 18th Century', and it does fall within that range. And to further the point, it doesn't say that these units are the best, but rather, 'the most influential military forces of the 18th Century'. Whether that translates into them actually being uber units or simply providing something like a morale bonus to the guys who've got them, I don't know. I'd hope it's a morale or similar bonus. If you're going into sea combat with the Victory in your line, you'd certainly be feeling happier than the enemy.

[DaveJB]

I'm more concerned about system requirements, since I don't know what they are. $20 doesn't mean shit to me.

Here they are, although it's not exactly detailed. Minimum is a Pentium 4 2.4GHz with 1GB of RAM and a "256MB DX9 compatible card," which I'm guessing means at least a Radeon 9600. No indications on what hard drive space is required either, though I'm guessing at least the same amount required by Medieval II (about 10-15GB).

[Darth Wong]

Official system requirements are usually a joke. I'm more concerned about realistic system requirements for smooth gameplay.

$20 is utterly insignificant compared to the cost for a significant hardware upgrade, which tends to be the real cost of a new game with lots of new features.

[DaveJB]

There's nothing about recommended specs on the website, so we probably won't know that until shortly before either the demo or the full game comes out, whichever is first. Judging by the minimum specs, I would say that any Athlon 64 or Core 2 should be good enough processor-wise, and 2GB of RAM about ideal (bearing in mind that's what they recommend for Vista, and I'm guessing you'll be running XP). Impossible to say what graphics chip you'd need since Sega themselves don't say what the minimum is, but a GeForce 6600 or 7600 would probably be good enough for a smooth ride - I say probably since I don't really have anything to base that estimate on, unlike the processor and RAM requirements.

[Thanas]

I'm really tired of the people who whine that a game isn't 100% historically accurate. I'm looking to play a game, not take a fucking history lesson. I don't want it to be completely ridiculous (Napoleonic tanks, for example, would be too much), but yeah, entertaining gameplay takes precedence over strict historical accuracy.

Of course it does. However, this does not mean one should fuck over history just because they are to lazy to do proper balancing, now does it? Because that's what CA has been doing ever since they released Rome.

Burning pigs indeed....

The developers once more show they know little of history. HMS Victory being the most-armed warship with 104 cannons at a time when the navies had ships operating that had over 120 cannons and were thousand tons heavier?

To quote the website, 'Lord Nelson's 104 gun flagship is one of the most heavily armed ships of the 18th Century', and it does fall within that range. And to further the point, it doesn't say that these units are the best, but rather, 'the most influential military forces of the 18th Century'. Whether that translates into them actually being uber units or simply providing something like a morale bonus to the guys who've got them, I don't know. I'd hope it's a morale or similar bonus.

Yeah, and in the past every special unit who was described like that dominated the battlefield. Like the Spartans.

Anyway, if you count the ships, 16 french, 12 Spanish and 7 English ones were bigger than the Victory. The truth is that other than the spanish or French, the English preferred to build smaller ships.

If you're going into sea combat with the Victory in your line, you'd certainly be feeling happier than the enemy.

No, considering that if the Temeraire had not intervened, the Victory would have been lost at Trafalgar to the Redoubtable, a 74 gun ship.

[Vanas]

The Victory's not the largest ship? Wow. That's something I'd never have noticed if I'd not have mentioned it earlier. And yes, you'd feel happier at going into battle with the Victory around due to it's modern reputation. Heck, the Navy took up painting it's ships in Victory's colours due to it being that famous. Again they said they're going for the most influential, not the best. So what if it's not 100% historically/chronologically accurate? The fact remains you're looking at an incredibly famous ship or group of people or weapon and that's got to count for something.

Would also mean you're screwed if they sank/shot it, but hey.

But that's just speculation anyway. if Victory ends up as 'lol terror of the seas' then, well, bugger *that*.

[Adrian Laguna]

If you're going into sea combat with the Victory in your line, you'd certainly be feeling happier than the enemy.

No, considering that if the Temeraire had not intervened, the Victory would have been lost at Trafalgar to the Redoubtable, a 74 gun ship.

Ah yes, the Temeraire-class 74-gun line-of-battle ship (of which HMS Temaraire was not part), one of the most successful ship designs in history, with over a 100 built around the turn of the 19th century. French naval engineering is unfortunately rather neglected in popular histories, when it was so good that the British actually copied them.

[Thanas]

The Victory's not the largest ship? Wow. That's something I'd never have noticed if I'd not have mentioned it earlier. And yes, you'd feel happier at going into battle with the Victory around due to it's modern reputation.

People who do not know naval history would, but I doubt those people know much about the Victory either.

Now, if they had indeed given you Nelson instead, that would have been something different.

Heck, the Navy took up painting it's ships in Victory's colours due to it being that famous. Again they said they're going for the most influential, not the best.

So you are saying that the Victory was the most influential warship of the eighteenth century? Well, too bad for you that Trafalgar happened in the nineteenth then.

As for Victory being influential in the eighteenth century, do not make me laugh. Heck, even Nelson thought the San Jose to be the best ship in the world (note that she was a Spanish design) and tried everything to command her. I would count the french designs of Sane to be way more influential, since they actually influenced shipbuilding in foreign nations, or the spanish design of San Felipe - which actually was the first 100+ gun ship that caused the English to build larger ships. The San Felipe has a way better record when it comes to influencing future desings. And if you want to talk about iconic, what about the L'Ocean or the Santissiam Trinidad? Both were way more iconic than Victory in her time, considering that unlike the Victory, L'Ocean was not left away to rot but proudly served into the 1850s as a french flagship.

But that's just speculation anyway. if Victory ends up as 'lol terror of the seas' then, well, bugger *that*.

I agree, but I fear that is what will happen.

Furthermore, we might talk about Victory all in this thread, but what about the other elite units? Like the amazons. Yeah, freaking amazons in dutch service.

[Vanas]

Now, if they had indeed given you Nelson instead, that would have been something different.

I think that pretty much sums it up, to be honest. It's the admiral, not the ship. As such, yeah, I'll concede those points. Naval history's something I've a passing interest in, but that's about it.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'm really tired of the people who whine that a game isn't 100% historically accurate. I'm looking to play a game, not take a fucking history lesson. I don't want it to be completely ridiculous (Napoleonic tanks, for example, would be too much), but yeah, entertaining gameplay takes precedence over strict historical accuracy.

Of course it does. However, this does not mean one should fuck over history just because they are to lazy to do proper balancing, now does it? Because that's what CA has been doing ever since they released Rome.

Burning pigs indeed....

Which of course brings up the question of whether you ever played the "Total Realism" mod? If you have I know they did a huge number of unit, map, building, and other changes but I have no reference poitn to figure out if it truly is a more accurate protrayl (game mechanics aside).

[Samuel]

I'm really tired of the people who whine that a game isn't 100% historically accurate. I'm looking to play a game, not take a fucking history lesson. I don't want it to be completely ridiculous (Napoleonic tanks, for example, would be too much), but yeah, entertaining gameplay takes precedence over strict historical accuracy.

Of course it does. However, this does not mean one should fuck over history just because they are to lazy to do proper balancing, now does it? Because that's what CA has been doing ever since they released Rome.

Burning pigs indeed....

Which of course brings up the question of whether you ever played the "Total Realism" mod? If you have I know they did a huge number of unit, map, building, and other changes but I have no reference poitn to figure out if it truly is a more accurate protrayl (game mechanics aside).

The other major RTW mod is his favorite mod, (Europa Barbarorum) which is impressive considering that BG is his favorite game. Yes, they are more historically accurate. For starters, Arcani weren't ninjas, the Legion did not deploy gladiators on the front line, the Egyptians were Greek style, the "barbarians" wore clothing, Rome was a Republic, etc. Thanas could go into more detail (information that you can't get from cursory glances), but once he starts... eh, let him. It is actually incredible the amount they butchered history.

[Stark]

Oh man I loved the 'straight out of the Old Kingdom' Egyptian forces.

[Vympel]

I really don't care about the history that much. As long as it has verisimilitude, I'm right.

The Egyptian army was fricking ridiculous, though. First of all it really should've been Ptolemaic Egypt. But then, I never bothered playing as the Egyptians - only Rome and the Seleucids.