New Total War title?

[Stofsk]

I called it ^_^

well, ok, not really, but i did say they should Shogun 2

[Thanas]

I called it ^_^

well, ok, not really, but i did say they should Shogun 2

It is not as if their pattern was not familiar on that one.... Make a new game, then a sequel to an old one, followed by a new game...


And I am not sure if I will be buying this one. The scenario is just not that appealing to me.

[Stofsk]

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

[Raesene]

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

You could count me in that queue, too - Medieval Japan isn't that appealing to me.

[Thanas]

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

No, not really. I'd be much more happier with a decent renaissance title.

[Stofsk]

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

No, not really. I'd be much more happier with a decent renaissance title.

That should have been Empire Total War.

I'm still wondering whether to get E:TW or Napoleon instead.

[Thanas]

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

No, not really. I'd be much more happier with a decent renaissance title.

That should have been Empire Total War.

EH? What do you mean by that? Empire never could have covered the period from 1453-1643.

I'm still wondering whether to get E:TW or Napoleon instead.

Get Napoleon.

[Stofsk]

No, not really. I'd be much more happier with a decent renaissance title.

That should have been Empire Total War.

EH? What do you mean by that? Empire never could have covered the period from 1453-1643.

I'm saying they should have done a Renaissance: Total War to follow Medieval 2, instead of Empire, and what would be Napoleon should have been Empire. (with Napoleon being a expansion pack instead of a full game)

Sorry I woke up just over an hour ago, still not firing on all cylinders.

I'm still wondering whether to get E:TW or Napoleon instead.

Get Napoleon.

Is Empire that bad?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Napoleon has more features and odds and ends which should have been in Empire (a fully functional multiplayer campaign, and more detailed factional units, for example). If you've never played either though, it really comes down to which time period you prefer more; 1700s or early 1800s. I picked up Napoleon for 50% off or somesuch, but I haven't even bothered to install it yet because the time period is just less interesting to me.

[Thanas]

Napoleon is in many ways was ETW was promised to be. Only instead of doing what they promised, they released it as a new title. Yay for screwing over the fans.

[PeZook]

Napoleon is in many ways was ETW was promised to be. Only instead of doing what they promised, they released it as a new title. Yay for screwing over the fans.

People keep saying that, but I've never heard anything concrete. Other than the supposedly improved AI, how does it differ from ETW?

[Thanas]

Napoleon is in many ways was ETW was promised to be. Only instead of doing what they promised, they released it as a new title. Yay for screwing over the fans.

People keep saying that, but I've never heard anything concrete. Other than the supposedly improved AI, how does it differ from ETW?

Multiplayer campaign, fixed diplomacy, fixed uniforms, much better realism like troops freezing in winter etc...

[CaptHawkeye]

Is artillery still useless or can I actually kill maybe 1 or 2 fucking people with it now?

[Thanas]

Is artillery still useless or can I actually kill maybe 1 or 2 fucking people with it now?

Don't know, never bought Napoleon.

[CaptHawkeye]

It's a deal breaker for me if these guys can't fix it. Artillery has been the leading cause of battlefield casualties for the past 100 years. Before that it was responsible for at the very least, some 30-40% of casualties. A number not represented at all in the TW games.

[Steel]

I haven't played Napoleon that much, but in my campaign there artillery was essentially a super unit. The rate of fire was so rapid that 2-3 batteries could wipe out any size advance of infantry with grapeshot without any risk.

Now bear in mind I had only played the first half of the first campaign, so I don't know if as the tech level goes up if artillery becomes even more dominant (plausible) or if infantry become more bulletproof, but it seemed a bit gamebreaking from my experience.

I know the artillery should be devastating, but they seemed to be firing much faster than I expected which led to them chewing through troops with grapeshot. Cannonballs not so much though. Somehow when a cannonball passes through a formation it just shoves men out of the way, so you end up with a great hole through the formation with men littering the floor... and then they all get back up again

[CaptHawkeye]

That's what's pissing me off, how useless cannonballs are. It's pretty much pointless to start shooting at a formation when they're beyond grape shot range.

[RogueIce]

Multiplayer campaign

Man, that was the biggest letdown. The thought of a multiplayer campaign had me really excited, even moreso than the naval battles (though that was a big thing, too). When they utterly dropped the ball on that, well...

You just want Rome 2 don't you.

You could count me in that queue, too - Medieval Japan isn't that appealing to me.

Count me in that number. It's just so much fun using my legions to conquer. So much so that now that I modified the campaign map to "unite" all of Rome at the outset (otherwise it's vanilla, no mods for me) I tend to add_population to rush the Marian Reforms and build up my mighty Legions.

Plus, with a Rome 2, they should in theory have a more flexible legion numbering/naming system. That'd be pretty sweet. I'm not sure how interesting naval battles would be, though. Isn't it kind of like, approach while shooting arrows, then board and it's a land battle?

As far as Shogun 2, we'll see. The setting isn't that interesting to me, though there can be fun had with samurai charges. So I guess we'll see. Odds are I'll have to get a new computer or upgrade the current by the time this rolls around. *sigh*

[ray245]

Sigh. I wished they would set the game during the Imjin war. At the very least, this expands the scope of the game to the whole of East Asia. Oh well.

Hopefully, the AI can be much better this time around since they are using some military manuals as a guide to design the AI.

[PeZook]

Hopefully, the AI can be much better this time around since they are using some military manuals as a guide to design the AI.

They always claim that. And the AI has been getting better, though by really small increments. It actually managed to give me a surprise or two in ETW!

[Ford Prefect]

Well, it's about time. I've only been waiting for Shogun 2 since before Medieval 2 came out.

[Thanas]

Hopefully, the AI can be much better this time around since they are using some military manuals as a guide to design the AI.

They always claim that. And the AI has been getting better, though by really small increments. It actually managed to give me a surprise or two in ETW!

Not to me. At least when you outflank in rome, the enemy maneuvers to match your movements. In empire they are just standing there if it is single unit vs. single unit.

[Stark]

Whoa, people still proudly talk about how they only play vanilla Rome? That's hilarious. Vanilla Rome sucks, is laughably easy, looks like shit, has awful historical accuracy, etc.

[Ypoknons]

The Romans actually managed to reliable supply and assemble far larger armies than China ever did.

Sorry guys, and ray245 too, shouldn't have posted something I haven't verified at all. My bad.

[Vympel]

Is Empire that bad?

No. I'm playing it now, fully patched (last patched very recently) its as fun for me as M2TW or RTW, and it introduced a bunch of new stuff that will be standard in the following games, like recruiting units from a general and not making cities the centerpiece of your province (with everything else being totally irrelevant).

As for the release of the improved (mostly in terms of AI, as I understand it, I'm not up to Napoleon yet) Napoleon screwing over the fans, it was never a full-price release, so I find that criticism partially unfair. Empire should have everything Napoleon has and Napoleon should've been cheaper though.