Empire: Total War on sale for $13.59, Total War Megapack $20

[Darkdrium]

Maybe you should try the stainless steel mod. Most of it consist of improving AI, adding a bigger map, more empires and a few new features.

[Dominus Atheos]

Maybe you should try the stainless steel mod. Most of it consist of improving AI, adding a bigger map, more empires and a few new features.

I do use mods, but Grandmaster Jogurt was talking about vanilla TW.

[Darkdrium]

I see. Well I know what you mean by wonky AI. I still remember my pikemen refusing to use their pikes while defending the gates, choosing instead to rely on their far mightier pocket knives.

[Edward Yee]

Question about the Steam package; I bought Empire: Total War by itself, and that since I have S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl on my account, I get to save $10 on Call of Pripyat; I don't know if that option actually displays for anyone not logged in with an account with an attached STALKER game.

Were I to hypothetically decide to get the Total War bundle (ETW, MTW2, MTW2: Kingdoms, RTW Gold, and RTW: Alexander), what would I be paying and getting?

[Dominus Atheos]

Were I to hypothetically decide to get the Total War bundle (ETW, MTW2, MTW2: Kingdoms, RTW Gold, and RTW: Alexander), what would I be paying and getting?

You'd still be paying $20 but IIRC Empire will show as a gift pass that you can give to another person who has Steam, so they can install Empire for free.

[Dominus Atheos]

More Steam deals. THQ complete pack is 50% off at $50. Mount&Blade is $5.

If you don't have Mount&Blade, buy it. It is a very fun game. It's actually very similar to Medieval 2 total war, except from a first person perspective. You recruit hundreds of troops, and take them around to conquer cities and castles. If you ever wanted to see what your general unit sees, this is the game for you.

[weemadando]

Mount and Blade is fucking awesome. And the modding community is fairly strong to boot.

[Stark]

Mount and Blade is a) nothing like Medieval 2 beyond 'has swords' and 'revolves around condlict' and b) is not first person. The combat is improved but the game is still laughably easy and unbalanced. It was awesome five years ago, now it's pretty tepid.

[Vympel]

Bah, Mount and Blade hasn't gotten worse with age - that would require a superior game along the same lines to show it up. Its still the best thing going in its non-existent genre.

[Stark]

And it's still fuck ugly, still has a horrid UI, still has bad itemisation, still has simplistic combat, still involves no real tactics etc . . .

This was fine years ago when it was a £10 Indy thing, not so much now, especially when much is fixed in mods. MnB development is over so it's never going to improve.

[Dominus Atheos]

Mount and Blade is a) nothing like Medieval 2 beyond 'has swords' and 'revolves around condlict' and b) is not first person. The combat is improved but the game is still laughably easy and unbalanced. It was awesome five years ago, now it's pretty tepid.

You make an army that may have spearmen, archers, cavalry, mounted archers, or heavy infantry. You take that group (or stack), go to a city, and lay siege to a castle. You can try storming the castle by moving ladders and siege towers up to the walls and sending your men up. If your stack meets another stack on the map they do battle on on open field. Admittedly the battles only involve hundreds of people instead of thousands. After the battle you can ransom the guys you captured.

Totally nothing like Medieval II. lol, amîrite Stark?

[Stark]

Yeah, because MnB is a strategic-level game where you manage cities and diplmacy and engage in tactical battles from a gods-eye view issuing orders at will.

Wait, it's a primitive quest lobby over a player-focused battle system where simple orders like 'go over there' are impossible and battles are generally won by player skill.

Oh sorry it has men with swords it's like Medieval even though it's an action game and not a tramped up RTS. Freespace is just like Homeworld or GalCiv!

[Edward Yee]

You'd still be paying $20 but IIRC Empire will show as a gift pass that you can give to another person who has Steam, so they can install Empire for free.

And here's the part wher I go "CRAP." *facepalm*

Thanks for explaining this; in the future I'll hopefully be more careful when making these choices, but I'll be sticking to Empire for now, as the only parts of MTW2 I would have played were the Renaissance-onward.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, because MnB is a strategic-level game where you manage cities and diplmacy and engage in tactical battles from a gods-eye view issuing orders at will.

Everything you just said there is true. That might explain why you don't like the game, if you never got past the point where you were just some guy doing small quests all over the map.

There's a whole part of the game you haven't played.

[Stark]

Lol. Sorry, if you think the vanilla map is anything near the level of Medieval 2 it must have got a lot worse. Even with the v1 attempts to get faction war working it's still window dressing. Needless to say the battle system is also more primitive, has a different focus, and involves totally different play.

Mods amusingly approach a higher strategic functionality, but that's not what we're talking about. The idea of 'gimme soldiers' as city management is terrible.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, because MnB is a strategic-level game where you manage cities and diplmacy and engage in tactical battles from a gods-eye view issuing orders at will.

Everything you just said there is true. That might explain why you don't like the game, if you never got past the point where you were just some guy doing small quests all over the map.

There's a whole part of the game you haven't played.

Yeah, and things actually thin out significantly. You go from "clear out these bandits" to "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions". Oh wait, there's also the thrill of selecting which improvement to make on your village. The game still feels half-finished. There are a number of features that have been cut out entirely, like chatter from townspeople and party members. There are no siege engines, beyond static, off-screen models. There are no quests that allow you to dig into politics, no quests beyond "duel of honor" and "ransom my husband" when it comes to ladies. You know what would be awesome? Assassination quests beyond the merchant ones, where you have to sneak in to the target's house. You could even implement thieving quests this way, too. People have implemented a lot of stuff in mods, and the direction of M&B changed markedly and for the better thanks to a mod, but very little of the cool stuff gets implemented. I'm sure Stark could add more, but these are the things that bug me most.

Further, it bears only the mildest resemblance to M2TW, so you're still wrong, smarmery aside.

Lol. Sorry, if you think the vanilla map is anything near the level of Medieval 2 it must have got a lot worse. Even with the v1 attempts to get faction war working it's still window dressing. Needless to say the battle system is also more primitive, has a different focus, and involves totally different play.

Mods amusingly approach a higher strategic functionality, but that's not what we're talking about. The idea of 'gimme soldiers' as city management is terrible.

I'm dumbfounded at the thought of people actually comparing the two and being serious. Before .903, there was literally no comparison. Now, there's a miniscule comparison after that, in that there is something approaching faction warfare. There's probably more to do at low-levels than at high, relatively, since you can be a merchant and get basic quests at low level, but high levels don't add anything approaching that.

EDIT: Wait, comparing the maps? That's hilarious.

[Dominus Atheos]

Yeah, because MnB is a strategic-level game where you manage cities and diplmacy and engage in tactical battles from a gods-eye view issuing orders at will.

Everything you just said there is true. That might explain why you don't like the game, if you never got past the point where you were just some guy doing small quests all over the map.

There's a whole part of the game you haven't played.

Yeah, and things actually thin out significantly. You go from "clear out these bandits" to "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions". Oh wait, there's also the thrill of selecting which improvement to make on your village.

You aren't playing the game the right way. You've only played half the game. The fact that you were even doing the "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions" thing is embarrassing.

Regardless of the stupid way you played it, there is a way to play it that is a lot like the TW series.

[Bakustra]

Yeah, and things actually thin out significantly. You go from "clear out these bandits" to "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions". Oh wait, there's also the thrill of selecting which improvement to make on your village.

You aren't playing the game the right way. You've only played half the game. The fact that you were even doing the "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions" thing is embarrassing.

Regardless of the stupid way you played it, there is a way to play it that is a lot like the TW series.

I'm sorry, but how is it the wrong way to play? Do you have commandments on stone tablets, handed down to you on Mt. Sinai, dictating, "thou shalt ignore the missions involving the marshal, for they are but a test unto the faithful?" No? So, what is this "right way to play", then? Further, why don't you actually address my other points, beyond crowing about how you are the more enlightened, indeed a veritable Boddhisattva of Mount&Blade, when it comes to playing the game?

Further, why include those quests, if they are the wrong way to play the game? Could it be one of the flaws Stark was talking about?

[Dominus Atheos]

You aren't playing the game the right way. You've only played half the game. The fact that you were even doing the "follow this dude around for a week while he does stuff and gives you other missions" thing is embarrassing.

Regardless of the stupid way you played it, there is a way to play it that is a lot like the TW series.

I'm sorry, but how is it the wrong way to play? Do you have commandments on stone tablets, handed down to you on Mt. Sinai, dictating, "thou shalt ignore the missions involving the marshal, for they are but a test unto the faithful?" No? So, what is this "right way to play", then?

Sign on to a faction and then help the lords fight their enemies. Maybe run some quests for them like delivering letters and crap. Then once most of the lords like you, locate the claimant for the faction and sign on to them to become their marshal. Then it turns into a TW-style game. You can recruit lords and give them missions like "follow me while I take this castle", take those giant cities, manage diplomacy, and train troops.

Further, why don't you actually address my other points, beyond crowing about how you are the more enlightened, indeed a veritable Boddhisattva of Mount&Blade, when it comes to playing the game?

You mean those parts where you bitch that the game isn't an RPG? No shit sherlock, if you want all that crap go play Oblivion.

Further, why include those quests, if they are the wrong way to play the game? Could it be one of the flaws Stark was talking about?

Because after you get farther into the game, you can give those quests out to other lords. As annoying as it was when you were forced to follow some king around while he besieged a castle, it's even more awesome when you can give orders to lords to follow you around while you besiege a castle. Or if you have enough lords following you, you can even take one of those huge cities.

[Bakustra]

I'm sorry, but how is it the wrong way to play? Do you have commandments on stone tablets, handed down to you on Mt. Sinai, dictating, "thou shalt ignore the missions involving the marshal, for they are but a test unto the faithful?" No? So, what is this "right way to play", then?

Sign on to a faction and then help the lords fight their enemies. Maybe run some quests for them like delivering letters and crap. Then once most of the lords like you, locate the claimant for the faction and sign on to them to become their marshal. Then it turns into a TW-style game. You can recruit lords and give them missions like "follow me while I take this castle", take those giant cities, manage diplomacy, and train troops.

That's what I suspected you were getting at. You realize that this does not fundamentally change the gameplay in any way? There is nothing beyond combat at that stage. At least at lower stages you can act as a merchant, or you even have those errand boy quests, or the spy quests. But you haven't explained how this is the right way to play and "my" way is wrong. (PS: my way is actually very different from that, but it might send you into a towering rage.)

Further, why don't you actually address my other points, beyond crowing about how you are the more enlightened, indeed a veritable Boddhisattva of Mount&Blade, when it comes to playing the game?

You mean those parts where you bitch that the game isn't an RPG? No shit sherlock, if you want all that crap go play Oblivion.

So why are townspeople in the game, except to add artificial difficulty to the spy quests? Why do your companions share stories when you visit certain places with them for the first time? For that matter, why can't the game include a more diverse array of quests - oh, I'm sorry that would make it an RPG (though it practically is one already) and RPGs are awful in your tiny brain. Keep blubbering, man, keep blubbering.

Further, why include those quests, if they are the wrong way to play the game? Could it be one of the flaws Stark was talking about?

Because after you get farther into the game, you can give those quests out to other lords. As annoying as it was when you were forced to follow some king around while he besieged a castle, it's even more awesome when you can give orders to lords to follow you around while you besiege a castle. Or if you have enough lords following you, you can even take one of those huge cities.

That doesn't answer my question. Perhaps there is no right way to play the game, and you are just an arrogant, stubborn individual? Further, it's not awesome. Not really. It's just a collection of little dudes wandering around behind you, so that you can sit and wait in camp for everybody to catch up so that you can fight another battle in a never-ending series of battles, where you have no strategy beyond "stand in a line" and "mill about", and then make a quick decision after each battle. Pardon me for wanting a little variety, but I guess I'm just one of the unwashed masses who play filthy RPGs instead of real games.

[Stark]

I guess 'is a lot like TW' means 'if you try really hard and squint it seems similar'. I might find someone who digs TW and sit them down in front of MnB. The first time they say 'how do I sent archers over there' I'll let you know. The asinine grind for faction so you aren't ordered to d stupid biring crap is also missing from MW2 (and amusingly most mods). The state of vanilla is really determined by longterm players who complained about thevtrip to Unstoppable Hero was too short. The solution was faction grinding.

Bakustra, I mean 'map' in terms of the quest-level play, not the phyical appearance of the map or battle zones. That'd be daft.

[Bakustra]

I guess 'is a lot like TW' means 'if you try really hard and squint it seems similar'. I might find someone who digs TW and sit them down in front of MnB. The first time they say 'how do I sent archers over there' I'll let you know. The asinine grind for faction so you aren't ordered to d stupid biring crap is also missing from MW2 (and amusingly most mods). The state of vanilla is really determined by longterm players who complained about thevtrip to Unstoppable Hero was too short. The solution was faction grinding.

Bakustra, I mean 'map' in terms of the quest-level play, not the phyical appearance of the map or battle zones. That'd be daft.

Both comparisons are pretty daft. There are more "quests" for M&B, sure, but most of them just serve to remind how skeletal and unfinished the game seems. The fact that M&B is realtime is nice, because you can herd enemies to places (though it would be nice if you could fight battles on bridges, or on the coast), and, in theory, straight into another party. Although it seems it would alienate Atheos, the spy quest, for example, would be much cooler if you could try to impersonate the spy. Granted, that, (and a lot of the cooler ideas) would require you to be able to leave your army at places, perhaps with a hero or something. Granted, that was incredibly buggy when they implemented it at first, but that was in the days when there were only two castles on the map, and two factions. Ahh, pseudo-nostalgia.

The idea that there is even tactics, let alone strategy, involved in M&B's battles in pretty ludicrous. You can put people in a line, you can have 'em follow you, and you can have them mill about. Oh, and you can move the line around.

[Dominus Atheos]

The first time they say 'how do I sent archers over there' I'll let you know.

Hit the 3 key, then the f6 key. For better control, hit the 3 key, then f2, then move to the location where you want them to go, then hit f1. Once all the archers have arrived, hit f3.

Like I said, you've clearly only been paying half the game.

[thegreatpl]

Hit the 3 key, then the f6 key. For better control, hit the 3 key, then f2, then move to the location where you want them to go, then hit f1. Once all the archers have arrived, hit f3.

and that just proves how complicated the game is. i had not even heard of the game before this, but just reading through the comments i could tell it was nothing like the TW games. and just that one sentence has turned me off the game permanently. i want a game i can jump straight in the deep end and play, not one where i have to play a bazilion tutorials. at least in the TW games, combat was relatively simple once you found the right buttons (not that i ever played for the combat, preferring to instead play for the Grand Strategy side of things). you might not win, but you could just, with a few simple clicks, tell that unit to go over there.

that i remember at least. been a while since i have played.

[Stark]

No, DA, when I said 'over there' I meant 'over there', not 'come here'. You have to physically go to every location for your troops (for no reason since there's a mouse-driven tactical map) because the battles are action + primitive squad commands and not an rts like TW.

Ps the squad commands are so ludicrously terrible it must have taken effort to not improve them for five years. Who needs indicators toninfork the player? TW has them.