Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

GEC: Discuss gaming, computers and electronics and venture into the bizarre world of STGODs.

Moderator: Thanas

User avatar
Steel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1123
Joined: 2005-12-09 03:49pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Steel »

How is the game performance wise compared to Empire? I hear it looks better, does it run faster?
Apparently nobody can see you without a signature.
Edward Yee
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3395
Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Edward Yee »

Scottish Ninja wrote:Hasn't that been true since RTW? Or do you mean something other than "armies move at the rate of their slowest unit"?
That may have happened before on the tactical battles with groups, BUT what I noticed was that this showed up on the strategic map. So far I haven't been able to replicate Skgoa's phenomenon of actually having units move faster when combined, only slower.

I've actually heard of one guy losing in NTW to the AI because it had been willing to play the waiting game WRT artillery instead of immediately marching the infantry to their deaths, then stationing no less than three hidden units that wiped out the "anti-infantry" (skirmishers) that he'd sent up along the flanks, and then following with a big en masse charge by his units too big for his artillery to thin out. My impression is that it's no longer "ridiculously" easy to flank the enemy unless you're winning the head-on clash already. Skgoa, what difficulty do you play on?

Looks-wise it seems better; I did not notice some of the effects changes, i.e. in how artillery impacts appear, but they have varying faces for the individual character models again, and depending on the general's unit, the general himself will appear with his own character model; Napoleon's got the big hat and gray overcoat, while Thomas Picton (most senior allied officer KIA at Waterloo) has civilian clothes and a top hat.
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. :D" - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13388
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by RogueIce »

So how is the campaign, length-wise? I know the years listed are rather short, but then I heard the time change is in months or something? So how many "turns" or whatever is a campaign now? Also, how global is it? Just Europe?

And I'll second the 'Empire timeframe in NTW engine' mod request. :D
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
User avatar
Skgoa
Jedi Master
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Skgoa »

Turns are two weeks now. The first campaigns are rather short, I have not finished a grand campaign yet. The map is almost only Europe, but since there is only a small number of major powers, I don't know how much fun the game would be after beating them.


@Edward Yee: Maybe it was just a bug or it was a special ability of Napoleon, but I remember going "wtf" when my stack had a longer movement range than the units in it - I had checked their range just a second before.
I play on the setting above normal.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
User avatar
Artemas
Padawan Learner
Posts: 472
Joined: 2008-12-04 03:00pm
Location: Calgary

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Artemas »

Maybe your general had a campaign movement modifier?
Shrooms: It's interesting that the taste of blood is kind of irony.
Edward Yee
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3395
Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Edward Yee »

As it were, I'd be fine with getting one of the Napoleonic War mods for ETW, it's just unfortunate that I have to choose between the expanded setting/theme of ETW, or the improved gameplay of NTW. Then again, NTW took out fire by rank...

I don't know if ETW was as strict about it, but apparently NTW does pay attention to ammunition limits for non-artillery; you're notified whenever an infantry regiment or "ranged cavalry" (i.e. dragoons or chasseurs à cheval) squadron runs dry. Unfortunately of course, friendly fire may apply all-around and not just with artillery, so only the frontmost line should have "fire at will" enabled, and it's a risky business having a deeper line (i.e. one's skirmishers behind one's line infantry)...

In one case, I've seen PrinceofMacedon (YouTube TW LPer) have to send his General's Staff at undefended enemy artillery because he'd forgotten to use proper cavalry in his army, only to not call off his own 6-inch howitzer in time... the unfortunate "general" did not survive. In another case, his opponent had a battery of 12-lber foot artillery partially behind his own fusiliers at point blank range, probably on fire at will at that... what stoic men, to stay upright and in place even as those next to them were literally launched forward by round shot from behind... :banghead:

P.S. How exactly do I Inspire a unit with my "general unit"? Also, does he have any passive benefits, or just the 3 instances of Rally (I assume increasing morale + possible lifting of "rout" when merely Broken and not Shattered) and the 2 of Inspire (I assume the same + increased melee/accuracy).
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. :D" - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
User avatar
Skgoa
Jedi Master
Posts: 1389
Joined: 2007-08-02 01:39pm
Location: Dresden, valley of the clueless

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Skgoa »

The existance of friendly fire doesn't bother me. You should have to pay attention. But I would like a unit/individual soldier stop firing automatically, if he/they could not hit the enemy without killing their comrades. It just doesn't make sense to me that a unit in reserve would start shooting another unit in the back just because they are between them and the enemy.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Economic Left/Right: -7.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
Edward Yee
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3395
Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Edward Yee »

On the other hand though, there are instances where you may decide that the added firepower forward is worth that risk; individual soldiers not firing would be nice. I think the incident with PrinceofMacedon's opponent was that he either did not notice the positioning (negligence) or had left them on "fire at will," which I do believe should be restricted to the immediate front line.
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. :D" - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
User avatar
Steel
Jedi Master
Posts: 1123
Joined: 2005-12-09 03:49pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Steel »

Whats this people are saying about fire by rank being removed in NTW?

I'd prefer if the default behaviour was to never risk friendly fire, which could then be overridden if you want. Literally the only times in ETW I saw artillery do decent damage was when they autotarget 2 enemy cavalry that walked round your lines and decided to blast down your entire battle line.
Apparently nobody can see you without a signature.
User avatar
Fire Fly
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1608
Joined: 2004-01-06 12:03am
Location: Grand old Badger State

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Fire Fly »

So should I forgive CA for the crappy game that was ETW and shell out $40 to buy NTW? I haven't really found an in depth analysis of NTW from a veteran TW gamer yet.
Edward Yee
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3395
Joined: 2005-07-31 06:48am

Re: Angry Joe Show on Napoleon: TW

Post by Edward Yee »

Steel wrote:Whats this people are saying about fire by rank being removed in NTW?
Here's what appears to be official word on it:
Jack Lusted, self-proclaimed CA Staff wrote:Fire by rank isn't in Napoleon for two reasons, one historical and one gameplay. The historical one is that fire by rank wasn't really used in Napoleonic times apart from perhaps on the parade ground.

The gameplay reason is that we've made a lot of improvements to the responsiveness of units in Napoleon. Soldiers get into position quicker, go from being in position to firing quicker, and soldiers in a unit can fire before whole unit has stopped moving. If we had kept firing drills from Empire, you would still hav to wait for all the soldiers in a unit to be in position before a unit could fire as all the firing drills require all the soldiers to be in place for a unit to fire.

The reload time of units has also decreased across the board so whilst the fact rank fire isn't included may seem like battles or kill rates have massively dropped, the reload time drop and unit reaction improvements all for a much more fluid battlefield and better gameplay.
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. :D" - bcoogler on this

"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet

Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists."
SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
Post Reply