Empire Total War

[drum-n-bass]

Another game that I am looking forward to.
I think Sweden would be pretty sweet to play as.

What are your opinions?

:smalltongue:

[Comet]

I'm looking forward to the smell of gunpowder in the morning. Because it smells like victory.

I'm very optimistic about this game. Here's hoping the sea battles turn out awesome as that is the gameplay element I feel Total War would benefit the most of.

[warty goblin]

I'll probably get it, than play way less than it deserves. The Total War games have always suffered from what I consider a 'hat' problem, in that they require me to simultaneously wear both my RTS and my X4 TBS hats, which isn't something I do very often.

[Ash08]

I'm looking forward to actually having control over the ships in naval combat, not having the computer do it for you. It will also be pretty fun to adjust my playing style from close combat to ranged:smallamused:

[Zenos]

I want this. Too bad that when it is released it will be seven months until I can ask for it as a gift.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I'm going to pre-order it over steam, so I get Rome: Total War too, cause I don't have that.

My plans are to play as France, and artillery the living paupers out of everyone, to get a feel for the game. Then, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, because cavalry is awesome. Lastly, I'm going to play as Canadian seperatists, by overtaxing Quebec as the French.

[Zenos]

Wow, I too was thinking of playing as the french. What a coincidence.

[Ash08]

I'll probably play as England, see how much of Europe I can conquer. And of course build the strongest fleet possible:smallbiggrin:, what else would the English do?

[Lord Mancow]

I'll probably play as England, see how much of Europe I can conquer. And of course build the strongest fleet possible:smallbiggrin:, what else would the English do?

Drink tea?

[dworkin]

I'll probably play as England, see how much of Europe I can conquer. And of course build the strongest fleet possible:smallbiggrin:, what else would the English do?

Steal the world while Europe plays in it's sandpit?

[toasty]

I love the Total War series.

If I can play as Russia... that could be fun... but I'll probably play as England or France.

[Killersquid]

Ottomans will be a definite playthrough for me, and then, if they have it, Venice.

[Ethdred]

I'll probably get it, than play way less than it deserves. The Total War games have always suffered from what I consider a 'hat' problem, in that they require me to simultaneously wear both my RTS and my X4 TBS hats, which isn't something I do very often.

That's what I like about them! Makes it an even more involving game.

Really looking forward to Empire, but will wait before getting it, so a) all the bugs can be patcched and b) I can find out if the sea battles are really all that, to avoid disappointment. Because basically this gives you the chance to re-play Trafalgar, so it had better be good!!

And who wants to bet that the expansion pack will be based on a certain Corsican artillery officer?

[Zenos]

I was more hoping of going Napoleon on Europe. I look forward to real naval battles, but I prefer walking around with a bunch of cannons and shooting stuff. I wonder if I can play out the Battle of the Pyrmids in Egypt?

[Ash08]

Drink tea?

Yea that too, but only after four 'o'clock, from breakfast onward is world conquering time!

[Ash08]

That's what I like about them! Makes it an even more involving game.

Really looking forward to Empire, but will wait before getting it, so a) all the bugs can be patcched and b) I can find out if the sea battles are really all that, to avoid disappointment. Because basically this gives you the chance to re-play Trafalgar, so it had better be good!!

And who wants to bet that the expansion pack will be based on a certain Corsican artillery officer?

They'll probably have a few historical battles based on that. I'm betting on Waterloo, and about two others.

[Martok]

I'm guardedly optimistic, but still worried. On the one hand, CA looks like they're finally addressing many of the concerns older players have had with the series. On the other hand, Rome and Medieval 2 left a bitter taste in my mouth after the sublime experience(s) of Shogun and Medieval, and so I'm wary of simply trusting CA will get it right this time.

If CA brings back what made STW/MTW great -- particularly the immersive atmosphere and the challenging AI -- *and* they fix the diplomacy (it's been broken in every game so far), all will be forgiven. If not, however, then this will truly be the last Total War title I ever play.



And who wants to bet that the expansion pack will be based on a certain Corsican artillery officer?
Heh, not me. Indeed, I think it's safe to say we all saw that coming a mile away from the moment the game was announced. :smallamused: I'll only be surprised if the expansion *isn't* centered around him.

[Ethdred]

I'm guardedly optimistic, but still worried. On the one hand, CA looks like they're finally addressing many of the concerns older players have had with the series. On the other hand, Rome and Medieval 2 left a bitter taste in my mouth after the sublime experience(s) of Shogun and Medieval, and so I'm wary of simply trusting CA will get it right this time.

If CA brings back what made STW/MTW great -- particularly the immersive atmosphere and the challenging AI -- *and* they fix the diplomacy (it's been broken in every game so far), all will be forgiven. If not, however, then this will truly be the last Total War title I ever play.



Heh, not me. Indeed, I think it's safe to say we all saw that coming a mile away from the moment the game was announced. :smallamused: I'll only be surprised if the expansion *isn't* centered around him.


Ha! So my Frederick the Great idea still has legs then?? :)

Completely agree about the diplomacy problem - I've rarely seen the value of making alliances, given how arbitrarily they were broken in Shogun. At least in Rome you could make some money out of diplomacy (and get the maps) but that was about it.

I've not played M2, but why did you think Rome was less immersive than the previous titles? I actually prefer it, though I agree the AI is not as good.

[Martok]

Completely agree about the diplomacy problem - I've rarely seen the value of making alliances, given how arbitrarily they were broken in Shogun. At least in Rome you could make some money out of diplomacy (and get the maps) but that was about it.
Actually, the diplomacy in Shogun didn't bother me that much. For one thing, alliances were semi-useful in that they brought in income (an extra 200 koku a year). For another, I fully expected rival clans to backstab me anyway, so IMHO the diplomatic AI fit in with the game's period quite well. :smallwink:

Otherwise, though, diplomacy has always been virtually useless. Alliances in the other three games are pretty pointless. Vassals/protectorates are equally broken in Rome and Medieval 2.

Another pet peeve of mine is when Faction A (which owns 1-2 provinces) declares war on Faction B (which owns 30 provinces), simply because Faction A happens to have local superiority in a bordering province owned by Faction B. Faction A doesn't see the bigger picture, however, which is that Faction B has a lot more resources it can bring to bear against them -- while A might take the province for a turn or two, B will come back with a vengeance and land with both feet on A's throat. (Given that I'm often Faction B, this is especially irritating. :smallannoyed: )

Similarly, it drives me insane when a faction refuses to accept peace/ceasefire, even if it's clearly losing the war and otherwise faces certain destruction. I don't know if the AI is just too stupid to realize it's lost the war or if it's simply suicidal, but it's certainly something that needs to be changed.



I've not played M2, but why did you think Rome was less immersive than the previous titles? I actually prefer it, though I agree the AI is not as good.
Well the AI was a big part of it. I'm not going to claim that the AI in Shogun and MTW was perfect (because it's definitely not), but I could at least expect that it would generally be a decent opponent. The same cannot be said of Rome or Medieval 2. This, despite the fact I'm not a very good armchair general -- truly, my talents as a commander are only mediocre at best. :smalltongue:

In STW/MTW, when I face an army that's the same size or larger than my own, I'm generally going to have a tough battle. I'll be sweating the whole time, worrying that I might lose....and sometimes I do. In Rome, I don't even begin to feel concerned unless I'm facing an army at least 3 times my size -- and even then I still usually win. Generally speaking, the AI has to outnumber me by 4:1 or even 5:1 in order to defeat me. The AI in Medieval 2 is somewhat better -- it can usually beat me if it outnumbers me by about 5:2 -- but it still leaves a lot to be desired.


As for other reasons why I find the atmosphere/immersion factor lacking:

The atrocious voice-acting is another big culprit. I winced every time an army acknowledged my orders on the campaign map (hearing American Marines portraying Roman centurions was especially painful). Most of the voicework during combat is cringe-worthy as well; the narration at the end of a battle (especially if it was a victory) always made me roll my eyes.

I know some will probably disagree with me, but I also found the campaign map to be a big immersion-killer. Everything was too bright, too colorful, too....cheery-looking. It gave the game a cartoonish quality, which really turned me off. (Medieval 2 was almost as bad in this respect.)


I've always found it ironic that in attempting to get away from the "unrealistic" Risk-style map of STW/MTW (which admittedly does have its flaws, don't get me wrong), CA actually destroyed a lot of the atmosphere from the first two games. As it is, I'm not terribly happy with the campaign map in Empire either, but I can live with it so long as the AI is actually capable of handling it in a competent manner.

[Murska]

Rome AI totally DIES to phalanxes. With a couple good phalanxes, one can hold a city for, well, ever against a MASSIVELY superior army, and even ground battles are FAR easier.

[Zenos]

Yeah. And generally charging with cavalry... Boom, any infantry that doesn't use phalanx are thrown several metres into the air. My older brother thinks that the cavalry in M2 on the other hand aren't smart enough to lower their lances for a charge. He says "They run up to the enemy, stop, draw their swords and trot into the enemy block".

[The_JJ]

Now see, in M2, you go in for ranged cavalry. I've taken Rome from the Pope and a three quaters full stack of Swiss cheese Guard with nothing but 5 turkoman units and a general (who saw no action).

In Rome, it's cavalry all the way until you get to Greece, in which case yyou buy up some javalin/archer mercs and run circles around the poor fellows and shoot them in the back.

[Ash08]

Rome AI totally DIES to phalanxes. With a couple good phalanxes, one can hold a city for, well, ever against a MASSIVELY superior army, and even ground battles are FAR easier.

No not really, berzerkers and javlin infantry stop them pretty well. Berzerkers for the obivous reason that NOTHING can stop berzerkers(not even a full legion... bad times:smalleek:). And standing infront of a phalanx for 15 minutes throwing stuff at them while they just stand there always works for me. Oh and flanking, if you can flank a phalanx... your set for the rest of the battle, unless your on extra hard. In which case, your set till the phalanx men remember their defensive bonus.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

CA has said that there will not be historical battles.

[Ethdred]

<snip>

Alliances bring in koku?? I never noticed that - and usually they all want to ally with me in the early game when I need the money. Shame my copy of STW is up the creek (the battle map appears sideways!!).

I was always confused by the Rome option of beceoming a protectorate - which didn't seem to have any effect, including still being able to attack my 'protector'.

As for small AIs attacking you - that seems to be a problem with all games like this - Civ is notorious for it. I think they just do it to ensure you still get a challenge. Since the player is likely to be the biggest empire, you could reach a point in the game where everyone is too frightened of you to attack. However, the refusal of ceasefires is annoying - I'm reminded of the Black Knight in the Holy Grail.

I had noticed battles seemed much easier in Rome, but I thought that was a combination of the difficulty level I was on and me getting more experienced at this sort of game :smallsmile: Certainly it seems that charging with your generals into the rear of the enemy is a win button pretty much every time. Now I think of it, I've not lost many battles, and I think all of those were heavily outnumbered.

I must have turned off the voice-acting (I tend to do that with all games, along with the music, as I listen to my own CDs when I'm computering) so didn't notice how annoying it is. But I've kept the end of battle announcements - I do enjoy hunting down the startled goats. Though nothing beats the way the guy in STW pronounces 'whipped dog'!

[Zenos]

I looked around and found an interview (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/10/13/empire-total-war-an-interview/).

It seems they ARE adressing the AI problem and the diplomacy problem. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves if it actually works.

[Martok]

Alliances bring in koku?? I never noticed that - and usually they all want to ally with me in the early game when I need the money. Shame my copy of STW is up the creek (the battle map appears sideways!!).
I feel for you, man. I'd go nuts if my copy of Shogun was lost or ruined. :smallfrown: But yes, you receive an additional 200 koku (or is it 250? I'm blanking out at the moment) per year for every alliance you have. So if you're allied to three other clans, that's an extra 600-750 koku per year.



As for small AIs attacking you - that seems to be a problem with all games like this - Civ is notorious for it. I think they just do it to ensure you still get a challenge. Since the player is likely to be the biggest empire, you could reach a point in the game where everyone is too frightened of you to attack. However, the refusal of ceasefires is annoying - I'm reminded of the Black Knight in the Holy Grail.
LOL! That last sentence is a very apt analogy. :smallamused:

I should clarify something: I don't have issues per se with smaller factions attacking me. What I do have issues with, however, is them doing it only one at a time, and/or ganging up on me *after* the point at which I maybe could've been stopped. More often than not, when a "coalition" of rival factions teams up to attack me, it's usually too late -- I'm already too powerful for them to have any realistic chance of bringing me down.



I had noticed battles seemed much easier in Rome, but I thought that was a combination of the difficulty level I was on and me getting more experienced at this sort of game :smallsmile: Certainly it seems that charging with your generals into the rear of the enemy is a win button pretty much every time. Now I think of it, I've not lost many battles, and I think all of those were heavily outnumbered.
Precisely. When I win a battle in Shogun and MTW, it generally feels like I've actually accomplished something -- you've really gotta work for it in order to win. Battles in Rome, on the other hand, are usually more of a hum-drum "I can beat the enemy with my eyes closed" type affair. Sure, they look great, but there's simply no challenge.



Though nothing beats the way the guy in STW pronounces 'whipped dog'!
Indeed. I also love it in MTW when Sean Pwertee's voice talks about the enemy general being a "worthless cur". :smallbiggrin:



It seems they ARE adressing the AI problem and the diplomacy problem. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves if it actually works.
I know, which is why I dare to actually be somewhat optimistic this time around. If -- *if* -- the AI and diplomacy turns out to be anywhere near as good as what CA is claiming, then I'll be a happy man. As you said, though, we can only wait to see whether reality matches up with what they're claiming.

[Zenos]

I've been looking on some of the FAQ on the main blogg, and it seems really good. Diferent kind of fortifications for example. I hope they implement the ability to "rake" enemy ships by firing at the aft or stern. Otherwise I just hope they don't make it so that any self-respecting powergamergeneral base their tactics on sitting around and blowing each other up. but it seems they want to make assault units viable.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I have high hopes for the AI. One of the guys doing AI is Jack Lusted, a former modder whose AI mods for M2TW are the best out there. Actually, Thamis, another modder from TWC is also on the Dev team.

[Zenos]

I have high hopes for the AI. One of the guys doing AI is Jack Lusted, a former modder whose AI mods for M2TW are the best out there. Actually, Thamis, another modder from TWC is also on the Dev team.

That does sound promising.

[Zenos]

Also, I found a fun little game (http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_war/ibs/game.html) whilst looking around for napoleonic era warfare.

My best result: French Early Major Victory. Also, Complete Allied Victory.

Wellington's Army has been beaten completely and decisively. Surviving Early French Major Victory - British soldiers try to make their way back to the coast for evacuation back to England. Brussels is thrown into a complete panic and British citizens clog the roads on the way to harbors trying to find whatever transportation than can find back to England. The largely intact French army turns on Blucher's Prussians and deals them a decisive loss. Napoleon is restored to his throne. With their two allies gone Austria and Russia seek terms and the napoleonic era lives.

It was fun looking at the tactical options used. I might try to recreate the battle in skirmish mode when I get the game.

[Murska]

No not really, berzerkers and javlin infantry stop them pretty well. Berzerkers for the obivous reason that NOTHING can stop berzerkers(not even a full legion... bad times:smalleek:). And standing infront of a phalanx for 15 minutes throwing stuff at them while they just stand there always works for me. Oh and flanking, if you can flank a phalanx... your set for the rest of the battle, unless your on extra hard. In which case, your set till the phalanx men remember their defensive bonus.

That's why I talked about the AI. For one, the AI never waits until his javelins have killed enough of my phalanx(not to mention that I obviously won't let them do that even if they try) and I won't let him flank a phalanx, mostly since I can just tell another phalanx to engage the enemy horsemen who're too stupid to disengage.

Not to mention city battles, with their chokepoints... slaughter.

[Zenos]

I also seem to have a problem with musketeers in M2, they always reform mid-firing. It is irritating, to say the least.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Do you mean when the rotate ranks, or they keep on stopping and facing a new direction.

Both things are annoying, and both are supposed to happen.

The rotate ranks thing is there too give them a slightly more realistic load time, and the moving to face a new direction is usually happens because their target has moved out of their line of fire, so they move to bring it back into the line of fire. Really messes up my line though.

Oh, and the TWC site is down right now. Annoying the hell out of me.

[Zenos]

I know it's supposed to happen. Still infuriating when one single musketeer doesn't manage to get back to the rear rank and all the other musketeers are waiting for him to do so.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Several gunpowder units don't do that though, specifically the Handgunners, and that Irish unit.

These units the first rank fires, then crouches to reload, and then the second rank fires over the first rank's head. You can make it so all units do this by going into your Export_Desc_Units file, and delete the line fires_by_rank from all other units.

[Ash08]

In Rome, I once on a bridge battle, had an entire unit of Phalanx Pikemen, simply turn around so the phalanx was facing the wrong way, and refuse to move AT ALL. As you can guess it was a slaughter. They just charged and since the phalanx was backwards, atomatic flank... instant slaughter.

[warty goblin]

In Rome, I once on a bridge battle, had an entire unit of Phalanx Pikemen, simply turn around so the phalanx was facing the wrong way, and refuse to move AT ALL. As you can guess it was a slaughter. They just charged and since the phalanx was backwards, atomatic flank... instant slaughter.

"Men, today is a good day to die stupid!"

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

All who vote on turning this thread from the Empire: Total War thread into the Total War in the Playground thread, say Aye!


Aye!


Slightly more on-topic, how many of you guys play any mods of M2TW? (I don't have Rome)

[Zenos]

I vote yay.

[The_JJ]

Okay... well, I'm looking forward to playing as Sweden.

[Martok]

Sweden is #3 on my list of factions I want to try in Empire. I want to play as Britain first, followed by Prussia. The Ottomans and France round out my top five.

[Zenos]

Lets see, my first choice is France, then Prussia or Sweden, probably Sweden. Then I am not really sure, british, ottoman empire or maybe even the americans.

[Ash08]

Aye!

I fell sad, I just got an entire imperial legion masacerd in the imperial campiagn:smalleek:. It was horrible, I know I should expect that kind of stuff on extra hard, but still... I thought I'd pacified the britians. My men were surrounded and hacked to peices. Its horrible, not only did I have cavalry superority, I also outnumbered them. Well it seems that the invasion of Britian is going to have a little setback now. Got to ship in more men, lets hope they do better than their predasessors.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Wow. That's just... Wow. On Vanilla? Wow.

[Ash08]

I don't think I was paying enough attention to my right flank. It brok, not enough men in reserve... they surrounded me. I died. And hey all because the auxilaries broke and ran.Never using them again.

[toasty]

I don't think I was paying enough attention to my right flank. It brok, not enough men in reserve... they surrounded me. I died. And hey all because the auxilaries broke and ran.Never using them again.

Just use twice as much... ;)

I'm playing MTW2 on hard with Denmark, I think I'm doing good... it appears the Holy Roman Empire is falling with a decent bit of ease. Plus, I know how to play the Pope enough to let my enemies get excommunicated before I do. :)

Next stop... Vienna! Then Scotland and England. I'll probably grab Oslo too.

[Zenos]

Just use twice as much... ;)

I'm playing MTW2 on hard with Denmark, I think I'm doing good... it appears the Holy Roman Empire is falling with a decent bit of ease. Plus, I know how to play the Pope enough to let my enemies get excommunicated before I do. :)

Next stop... Vienna! Then Scotland and England. I'll probably grab Oslo too.

Beware of underwater attacks in the sound of Drøbak. :smallwink:

[Ash08]

HA, England is mine, I have conquered all in the name of ROME! All I need to do now is deal with those snivling Scipo and the senate. Fortonatly for me, the green guys(why am I blanking on their name?:smallmad:) are dead due to previous civil war. Well next stop is Rome!

[Zenos]

I've done the exact opposite, I conquered Rome with the Britons. And most of France (gauls are destroyed), parts of Germany, and parts of Spain.

And the green guys are the Brutii.

[Ethdred]

AH, there's nothing quite like having your barbarian hordes swooping down from the Alps to plunder the rich decadent fools! I've done it with the Gauls, Brits and Germans! Those Julii always get it, though it varies whether I decide to unite the barbarians first or go straight for the Latins. Taking over Spain can get me sidetracked into North Africa and dealing with the Carthaginians and Scipii. I've not yet got to the stage of matching British chariots against Egyptian ones, though that would be fun.

[Murska]

I'm looking forward to playing as Sweden. Then I'll proceed to rechristen my kingdom Finland and conquer the world.

[Ethdred]

I'm looking forward to playing as Sweden. Then I'll proceed to rechristen my kingdom Finland and conquer the world.

That's the spirit! It's what this sort of game is for!

[Zenos]

So, what other playable factions than Britain, France, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia do you think there will be?

[warty goblin]

I'm looking forward to playing as Sweden. Then I'll proceed to rechristen my kingdom Finland and conquer the world.

Having spent the last two and a half weeks working on a paper about the Winter War, you really should be able to do it with about six guys as well. Because you do not mess with the Finns.

[Zenos]

Wasn't the worlds best sniper a Finnish farmer? I think I read something to that effect.

[warty goblin]

Wasn't the worlds best sniper a Finnish farmer? I think I read something to that effect.

Indeed, 500+ confirmed kills using a bolt action rifle and open sights, all within about a hundred days during the Winter War, which means he was pretty much making a kill every daylight hour.

[UnChosenOne]

warty goblin. You read about the Winter War. And i'm just going to wait to 24th day and then I start to play the Talvisota:icy hell and laugh that you sit and read about Winter War and I sit and play the game that tell's about Winter War. Yes only about Winter War. Yes and on the both soviet and finnish side.

[Zenos]

I've been playing Kingdoms: Teutonic campaign a bit. First I made Norway join the Kalmar union. Then I brutalized the Teutonic order and the Holy Roman Empire. Then I caught megalomania and invaded Poland. :P (If any of you read the norwegian comic Pondus you will get it). Currently I was preparing for attacking novgorod from two angles before the Mongols (the other remaining faction against me) betrayed me. Anyways I am gonna CRUSH! MAIM! KILL! them all. It's funny conquering the world, even with
MTW2's flaws.

EDIT: And my character is named Yngvald the Lord of Terror (note, that to me, the name is hilariously enough associated with inoffensive people). :smallbiggrin:
He is affected by the plague. :smallfrown: however, he has not died from it in several years, so no bother. Also, I have had large armies made entirely from Norse War Clerics.

[warty goblin]

warty goblin. You read about the Winter War. And i'm just going to wait to 24th day and then I start to play the Talvisota:icy hell and laugh that you sit and read about Winter War and I sit and play the game that tell's about Winter War. Yes only about Winter War. Yes and on the both soviet and finnish side.

Fair enough, but honestly no game could come close to being as hardcore as the Finns were. I mean I've never seen a game where you get your arm shot half off by a machine gun at the same time that your gun jams, so you clear it with your teeth, shoot a couple of machine gunners, take two more bullets to the chest, then walk off the field to have your arm amputated. In general I don't enjoy doing research papers, but this one has actually been tolerable, if only because the research itself was pretty interesting.

[UnChosenOne]

So you are now watching the soviet propaganda. Where the normal finnish soldier kill's the 20 soviet's and destroys the 5 tanks with M/27 Pystykorva. Well truth is that normal finnish soldier cuold kill 20 soviet's and 4.5 tank's with M/27 Pystykorva.

[toasty]

I've been playing Kingdoms: Teutonic campaign a bit. First I made Norway join the Kalmar union. Then I brutalized the Teutonic order and the Holy Roman Empire. Then I caught megalomania and invaded Poland. :P (If any of you read the norwegian comic Pondus you will get it). Currently I was preparing for attacking novgorod from two angles before the Mongols (the other remaining faction against me) betrayed me. Anyways I am gonna CRUSH! MAIM! KILL! them all. It's funny conquering the world, even with
MTW2's flaws.

EDIT: And my character is named Yngvald the Lord of Terror (note, that to me, the name is hilariously enough associated with inoffensive people). :smallbiggrin:
He is affected by the plague. :smallfrown: however, he has not died from it in several years, so no bother. Also, I have had large armies made entirely from Norse War Clerics.

During my English Campaign one of my kings was John (or Henry) the Raving Mad. That was cool. Then I had some guys like: X the Scarred, X the Living Saint...

The titles the game comes up with are fun.

Oh, and england and Russia have declared war on me. :( Now England rules most of Scandinivia and I'm fighting a mostly naval Battle with Russia (go figure...). The Holy Roman empire... I will destory... eventually.

[warty goblin]

So you are now watching the soviet propaganda. Where the normal finnish soldier kill's the 20 soviet's and destroys the 5 tanks with M/27 Pystykorva. Well truth is that normal finnish soldier cuold kill 20 soviet's and 4.5 tank's with M/27 Pystykorva.

I hardly think the memoirs of Field Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim count as Soviet propaganda....

[Martok]

So, what other playable factions than Britain, France, Sweden, the Ottoman Empire and Prussia do you think there will be?
Well the Dutch have already been confirmed as playable (Prussia has not, although I've no doubt they'll be playable as well). Also, CA has said the United States and the Mughal Empire will be playable, although they've yet to be "officially" confirmed on the game's main website (http://www.sega.com/empire/gameinfo/news.php). It's also been very strongly hinted that Poland-Lithuania will be playable as well.

As for the three remaining playable factions, I would guess Russia, Spain, and Austria. They're the most obvious choices IMO.

[Ethdred]

Well the Dutch have already been confirmed as playable (Prussia has not, although I've no doubt they'll be playable as well). Also, CA has said the United States and the Mughal Empire will be playable, although they've yet to be "officially" confirmed on the game's main website (http://www.sega.com/empire/gameinfo/news.php). It's also been very strongly hinted that Poland-Lithuania will be playable as well.

As for the three remaining playable factions, I would guess Russia, Spain, and Austria. They're the most obvious choices IMO.

Given the period, I can't see how they could get away without Russia, Austria and Prussia (7 Year's War??). I'd be interested to see how far into Asia they are going this time. Given the lack of teaching about that area in our schools, I am always interested to find out about the civilisations and history. (So the Let's Play thread is really interesting to me.)

[UnChosenOne]

I hardly think the memoirs of Field Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim count as Soviet propaganda....

Field Marshal Carl Gustav Mannerheim. Some soviet. Because Field Marshal (in the Winter War) was Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim.

[Zenos]

During my English Campaign one of my kings was John (or Henry) the Raving Mad. That was cool. Then I had some guys like: X the Scarred, X the Living Saint...

The titles the game comes up with are fun.

Oh, and england and Russia have declared war on me. :( Now England rules most of Scandinivia and I'm fighting a mostly naval Battle with Russia (go figure...). The Holy Roman empire... I will destory... eventually.

Also, since the GiantitP forums are mainly D&D, I just can't stop thinking about how cool an army of D&D Clerics could be. The guys in the back can heal the guys in front who rampage through the enemy lines. And me and my brother were discussing the potential of twenty thirty-Cleric level 10 units.

[Cristo Meyers]

Also, since the GiantitP forums are mainly D&D, I just can't stop thinking about how cool an army of D&D Clerics could be. The guys in the back can heal the guys in front who rampage through the enemy lines. And me and my brother were discussing the potential of twenty thirty-Cleric level 10 units.

Wouldn't that be almost all the high-level clerics in the country?

Figures, I get addicted to Medieval and I find this...I only just now beat my first Grand Campaign as Spain!

[Selrahc]

Um, you guys remember that the Finns didn't exactly come out of the Winter War well? If they'd just signed the treaty offered them by Russia at the start, they would have come out of things with more land intact, and without having lost tens of thousands of troops on each side.

No matter how badass the troops on the Finnish side were, I think it is a bit of a poor do to glorify a war that achieved nothing, and left many dead.

Side note: Warty do you do History? I thought you were doing physics or maths or something...

[toasty]

Today in Medieval Total War a lot happened.

I conquered a new province (moving so slow becasue I really don't want to get excomunicated...). Only two more German terrororities left.

We had about 6 different popes (go figure... they all died really fast).

King Harkenknud the Malevolent died. I loved his title. His heir is possibly better, but doesn't have a good title yet. He's quite the tyrant though (between the assassins and the wholesale slaughter of prisoners).

Now I need to take Oslo from the English, and then invade England itself! :smallbiggrin:

[Cristo Meyers]

Now I need to take Oslo from the English, and then invade England itself! :smallbiggrin:

Bloody English...they were my biggest nemesis in my game...they managed to slaughter a whole branch of my family in one city.

...I paid them back in blood. Was forever known as "the Butcher".

[warty goblin]

Um, you guys remember that the Finns didn't exactly come out of the Winter War well? If they'd just signed the treaty offered them by Russia at the start, they would have come out of things with more land intact, and without having lost tens of thousands of troops on each side.

No matter how badass the troops on the Finnish side were, I think it is a bit of a poor do to glorify a war that achieved nothing, and left many dead.

Side note: Warty do you do History? I thought you were doing physics or maths or something...

If they had accepted the treaty they would have come out better, but the treaty wasn't exactly a particularly reasonable document. They also arguably won the war (or at least didn't lose), since Stalin pretty clearly wanted to annex the entire country, and got 10%, while the Finns remained independent, which was their goal. Also, if not becoming another Stalinist client state isn't worth fighting for, I'm really not sure what is.

[Zenos]

Bloody English...they were my biggest nemesis in my game...they managed to slaughter a whole branch of my family in one city.

...I paid them back in blood. Was forever known as "the Butcher".

Which faction were you playing at that time?

[Cristo Meyers]

Which faction were you playing at that time?

Spain.

I was pretty much running roughshod over mainland Europe and Northern Africa, but those bloody British had pretty successfully repelled any attack I made against the islands...then I made a tactical error and ended up with 3 family members trapped in Edinburgh with no relief coming...

I diverted my best army from campaigning against the Holy Romans and paid them back for those deaths...exterminated every single British town.

I was already excommunicated (try to kill a guy once...man the Pope holds a grudge...), what was the worst that could happen?

[Zenos]

Spain.

I was pretty much running roughshod over mainland Europe and Northern Africa, but those bloody British had pretty successfully repelled any attack I made against the islands...then I made a tactical error and ended up with 3 family members trapped in Edinburgh with no relief coming...

I diverted my best army from campaigning against the Holy Romans and paid them back for those deaths...exterminated every single British town.

I was already excommunicated (try to kill a guy once...man the Pope holds a grudge...), what was the worst that could happen?

I know how it is to try to assassinate the pope. I've done so as
Sicily. Even though I gave him a "sorry man, what was I thinking?" gift. :smallfrown:

And are you sure your invading fleets weren't caught in some kind of storm? :P Anyways, how did they manage to successfully repel all your attacks? Just having huge armies against smaller invading forces? Because that's why I usually only fight on one front if I can.

[Selrahc]

If they had accepted the treaty they would have come out better, but the treaty wasn't exactly a particularly reasonable document. They also arguably won the war (or at least didn't lose), since Stalin pretty clearly wanted to annex the entire country, and got 10%, while the Finns remained independent, which was their goal. Also, if not becoming another Stalinist client state isn't worth fighting for, I'm really not sure what is.

The deal wasn't that bad. I don't think a little loss of prestige is all that important, compared to averting a war that can only end badly for your country. Hundreds of thousands died for no gain. Land was lost that should have stayed with Finland.

Theres also the fact that after the war, Finland effectively was forced to back down to every demand of diplomacy Russia ever made. They were forced to commit their troops to the defence of Russia in the case of a war, forced to not accept American aid, their foreign policy was first sent to Moscow for approval. They became in effect, a Russian client state, just with the fringe benefit of control over domestic policy.

Signing the treaty would have been a much better deal.

[Cristo Meyers]

I know how it is to try to assassinate the pope. I've done so as
Sicily. Even though I gave him a "sorry man, what was I thinking?" gift. :smallfrown:

And are you sure your invading fleets weren't caught in some kind of storm? :P Anyways, how did they manage to successfully repel all your attacks? Just having huge armies against smaller invading forces? Because that's why I usually only fight on one front if I can.

No storm, just bad intel. I thought the majority of the British forces were busy fighting France...

...I was very, very wrong...

[Murska]

The deal wasn't that bad. I don't think a little loss of prestige is all that important, compared to averting a war that can only end badly for your country. Hundreds of thousands died for no gain. Land was lost that should have stayed with Finland.

Theres also the fact that after the war, Finland effectively was forced to back down to every demand of diplomacy Russia ever made. They were forced to commit their troops to the defence of Russia in the case of a war, forced to not accept American aid, their foreign policy was first sent to Moscow for approval. They became in effect, a Russian client state, just with the fringe benefit of control over domestic policy.

Signing the treaty would have been a much better deal.

Signing the treaty would've effectively ended the Finnish neutrality because of the Hanko peninsula thing, and would've lost them a large part of their most wealthy area. In return, they would have gotten some wilderness. It would've eventually forced Finland into war with Germany and Finland would have most probably been behind the Iron Curtain later on.

Besides, "Give us this piece of land or we'll attack you" tends to, if accepted, result in more and more arrogant demands.

EDIT: Oh, and about Simo Häyhä, he not only got those 500+ confirmed kills with the sniper, he got 200+ with a submachinegun.

[Zenos]

I've taken over all the baltic, crushed the rebel city Danzig (bloody civil revolts) and have won the campaign. Well, back to see just how many town guards you can kill at a river crossing with OVER NINE THOUSAND rocket launchers and extreme prejudice.

[warty goblin]

The deal wasn't that bad. I don't think a little loss of prestige is all that important, compared to averting a war that can only end badly for your country. Hundreds of thousands died for no gain. Land was lost that should have stayed with Finland.

Theres also the fact that after the war, Finland effectively was forced to back down to every demand of diplomacy Russia ever made. They were forced to commit their troops to the defence of Russia in the case of a war, forced to not accept American aid, their foreign policy was first sent to Moscow for approval. They became in effect, a Russian client state, just with the fringe benefit of control over domestic policy.

Signing the treaty would have been a much better deal.

To be fair, at least according the Finnish foreign minister, they didn't know they were breaking off negotiations in November. They were not progressing and were temporarily suspended on I think the 15th or so, but Moscow gave no indication that it was 'sign this treaty, or we invade' at that point, and it was only supposed to be a temporary halt to negotiations.

And let's face it, a Soviet satellite state with domestic policy control beats the hell out of a Soviet satellite state without domestic policy control.

edit: Just dug out my research notes. Negotiations collapsed on the 9th of November, not the 15th. The WG Research Institute apologizes for this mistake.

Now back to trying to get my damned DVD drive to work again, so I can play some M2TW.

[Murska]

I've taken over all the baltic, crushed the rebel city Danzig (bloody civil revolts) and have won the campaign. Well, back to see just how many town guards you can kill at a river crossing with OVER NINE THOUSAND rocket launchers and extreme prejudice.

I once started a custom battle with, on one side, a village manned by peasants, while on the other, 4 armies with 20/20 artillery, mostly rocket launchers and couple different types of cannons. The village was absolutely demolished and the holes in the buildings looked really neat.

Oh, and a 20 cannon vs. 20 cannon battle is also funny.

[Zenos]

I once started a custom battle with, on one side, a village manned by peasants, while on the other, 4 armies with 20/20 artillery, mostly rocket launchers and couple different types of cannons. The village was absolutely demolished and the holes in the buildings looked really neat.

Oh, and a 20 cannon vs. 20 cannon battle is also funny.

I have trouble running battles with only cannons, or musketeers. Basically, the side that has to move the less to maximise the firepower wins.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Epic battles as the Byzantine Empire in the Chivalry II: Sicilian Vespers mod, on Dark Age.

I always play really slow. In this mod, you start out in the year 888. This allows for many interesting local developments, including the invasion of the Magyar tribes, Alfred the Great's later years fighting the Danes, the beginning of the Reconquista, the epic battles between the 3 great Post-Charlemagne empires, and the even more epic battles between the Roman Empire and the Abbassid Caliphate.

I was the Roman's.
I start out with a nice large empire, good thematic troops, and, surprisingly, a stable economy. In addition to owning Greece, Macedonia and Thrace, I also own all of Asia Minor minus Kilikia, I own the Crimea, and I own parts of Italy and Sicily. You start out allied with the Kingdom of Germany(HRE), the Armenians(NEW FACTION), the Kieven Rus(RUSSIA), and the Most Serene Republic of Venice (VENICE) and at war with the Duchy of Benevento (SICILY) and the Abbasid Caliphate (TURKS).

I made peace with the Langobards (Benevento) and allied myself with the Bulgarians, because I couldn't afford a war with either of those powers when I'm at war with the Abbasid's. I'm not overly worried about the Crimea, because it really isn't very important, and I can probably handle the Aghlabid's of Sicily and Tunisia easily.

So, I fight the Arab's.
For more than 10 years.
Straight.
A battle or two every turn.
Between 3/4 strength armies.
In the same 2 or 3 provinces.

At first i was fighting them in Roman Anatolia, but then I pushed them out, and I fought them in Kilikia, and then I captured Sis, and then I fought them all the way to Antioch, and then I took Malatya, which is the only land between me and my Armenian allies.
The enemy repeatedly spams stack after stack of levies and religious troops, which I easily cut down with my army of spearmen. My armies in the field vary from a single 3/4 stack to 2 full stacks. Though I was winning the battles, it looked like I was losing the war: They just wouldn't stop coming! Every second, I was worrying about a new stack coming that I couldn't handle.

I can't get any further than Antioch, because they have me surrounded. There are 3 ways to get to Antioch, and I can only guard 2 at a time, because otherwise me armies are too weak. No matter what I do, at the end of every turn, there's an enemy army besieging Antioch. However, the flow of enemy troops is beginning to trickle to a stop.

And then, right when I think I'm safe, the Umayyid's and the Aghlabid's declare war on me, a Jihad to get to Antioch.

Bastards.

[Zenos]

Seems Empire has been rescheduled to release in March so they can polish gameplay and add Multiplayer Campaign. What do people think about this?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

While I'm annoyed that it's another month without getting my E:TW fixation done with, I know that the game that we end up with will be of better quality than it would be otherwise.

And a multiplayer campaign mode is awesome. I hope they implement it well.

[warty goblin]

Seems Empire has been rescheduled to release in March so they can polish gameplay and add Multiplayer Campaign. What do people think about this?

Polish: Good. Fewer bugs = better game.

Multiplayer Campaign: Review pandering. I'm betting no more than about 5% of players will ever play a MP campaign through to completion.

[Zenos]

Polish: Good. Fewer bugs = better game.

Multiplayer Campaign: Review pandering. I'm betting no more than about 5% of players will ever play a MP campaign through to completion.

Nope, but it's fun whilst you're doing it. This brings back memories from hotseat mode in Kingdoms...

[Martok]

Seems Empire has been rescheduled to release in March so they can polish gameplay and add Multiplayer Campaign. What do people think about this?

I'm okay with it. I don't know that I'll necessarily play the MP campaign myself, but I appreciate that it's being added. Also, another month gives the coders and testers that much more time to fix bugs and any balance issues that crop up, which is fine by me. :smallcool:

[Zenos]

New podcast thingy out, it's about the Path to Independence single player campaign.

EDIT: Spain has been confirmed. Better take down the easy pickings first, then move on to the Prussians and Russians.

[Zenthar]

The deal wasn't that bad. I don't think a little loss of prestige is all that important, compared to averting a war that can only end badly for your country. Hundreds of thousands died for no gain. Land was lost that should have stayed with Finland.

Theres also the fact that after the war, Finland effectively was forced to back down to every demand of diplomacy Russia ever made. They were forced to commit their troops to the defence of Russia in the case of a war, forced to not accept American aid, their foreign policy was first sent to Moscow for approval. They became in effect, a Russian client state, just with the fringe benefit of control over domestic policy.

Signing the treaty would have been a much better deal.

The Finns had a BIG chance of "winning" the war. They were advancing very quickly into the Soviet territory, but Germany lost. And then USA declared war on Finland because they had crossed their original border.

Had Germany not lost.. who knows?

And Finland never was a Russian client state. They had massive stashes of weapons hidden in case the Russians would try something, and they also secretly took aid from USA.

[Om]

The Finns had a BIG chance of "winning" the war. They were advancing very quickly into the Soviet territory, but Germany lostHmm? The Finnish advance was halted at the Svir and the lines remained stable for over two years. Its success was always going to be entirely dependent on German operations further south. But then the Soviet state failed to oblige by collapsing. Oops, so much for 'Greater Finland'...


Seems Empire has been rescheduled to release in March so they can polish gameplay and add Multiplayer Campaign. What do people think about this?Call me a cynic if you will, but that is the standard industry excuse that is trotted out to explain away delays

[kpenguin]

Seems Empire has been rescheduled to release in March so they can polish gameplay and add Multiplayer Campaign. What do people think about this?

You know, the weird thing is that I read this as "add Polish gameplay and multiplayer campaign"

[Zenos]

Stuff that has popped up on the ETW site: Razee and spain factions. The Razee sounds kinda fun, and spain is just another faction to conquer for Le Roi (C'est moi).
Anyways, I think I'll make pretty balanced armies. Without cavalry, the artillery is propably gonna crush my poor troops. Without artillery and foot soldiers, the infantry squares are going to crush my cavalry. Are anybody planning what kind of tactics they want to use in this?

[warty goblin]

Nope, but it's fun whilst you're doing it. This brings back memories from hotseat mode in Kingdoms...

Right, nothing wrong with it, but it seems a stupid place to be spending resources in terms of good gameplay delivered to as many people as possible. A better optimized engine and better AI would rank far higher on my list of desires.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I've seen a few videos of battles, and am not impressed.

1) I saw a ship pivot 90 degrees on the spot. However, the little arrow that showed it's planned movement showed a realistic course, so hopefully this will be fixed.

2) 4 ranks of British infantry fired at once. This might be because they were firing up at the American's standing on the ridge. This, if not fixed, could kill the game, as what would be the point of spreading out into a line if you could just have a block, with the same firepower?

[Saithis Bladewing]

I've seen a few videos of battles, and am not impressed.

1) I saw a ship pivot 90 degrees on the spot. However, the little arrow that showed it's planned movement showed a realistic course, so hopefully this will be fixed.

2) 4 ranks of British infantry fired at once. This might be because they were firing up at the American's standing on the ridge. This, if not fixed, could kill the game, as what would be the point of spreading out into a line if you could just have a block, with the same firepower?

Having seen the officially released trailers, I saw nothing of the sort. I won't judge it until it's released, though. Bugs plague any pre-release, and even some released titles.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Apparently those videos were not sanctioned by CA, and were from a months-old pre-Alpha build. Nevermind, all!

[Tweekinator]

To be fair, at least according the Finnish foreign minister, they didn't know they were breaking off negotiations in November. They were not progressing and were temporarily suspended on I think the 15th or so, but Moscow gave no indication that it was 'sign this treaty, or we invade' at that point, and it was only supposed to be a temporary halt to negotiations.

And let's face it, a Soviet satellite state with domestic policy control beats the hell out of a Soviet satellite state without domestic policy control.

edit: Just dug out my research notes. Negotiations collapsed on the 9th of November, not the 15th. The WG Research Institute apologizes for this mistake.


Don't forget how the Finns joined up with the Nazis!

Edit: Whoops; that was the Continuation War, not the Winter War.

[Zenos]

By the way, how are you planning to expand in ETW? As France, I will probably try to keep at peace with central european powers and maybe even with the british, and try to take over northwestern Africa, moving eastwards towards Egypt. Then, I am not so sure what I will do. If I build a strong navy I might just get it into my head to blockade GB and force them to cede the
13 colonies to me.
If I manage to gather that strong a navy.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

By the way, how are you planning to expand in ETW? As France, I will probably try to keep at peace with central european powers and maybe even with the british, and try to take over northwestern Africa, moving eastwards towards Egypt. Then, I am not so sure what I will do. If I build a strong navy I might just get it into my head to blockade GB and force them to cede the
13 colonies to me.
If I manage to gather that strong a navy.

What about New France, eh?

I'm going to make sure New France rebels, so I can play as le Quebec Libre. Just to make fun of the separatists.
Also anticipating a fun PLC campaign.

[Zenos]

I am either gonna just hold onto New France, or maybe just sell it to someone for tech/money. Although I could expand it of course, but I am not so sure if I actually want to do so.

EDIT: Also, I am gonna sail to Köpenhagen, blockade it or something, then pressure the Danes to give me Norway. It gives me a nice naval base against Russians and Brits, and, err....
<@

[Dragor]

I'm hopeful about everything in E:TW, but the one thing I hope they fix properly this time is diplomacy. I hate how peace was nigh impossible to negotiate in Medieval 2- it didn't ruin the game for me, but it's still very aggravating how, even when as battered and bruised as you are, the AI refuses to cave in.

(The latest game I've played on M:TW2 has proven interesting, though. The Papacy got shunted off of Rome by Sicily and moved to, of all plays, Valencia. I got Rome back for them; I didn't expect there to actually be a message from the Pope saying "Give it back and you'll be rewarded and I'll love you. Don't and I'll excommunicate you and hate you for life." :smalleek:)

So yeah. Better diplomacy, for the love of God.

I'm going to play as the United Provinces, just because it seems to be the most interesting so far. I usually play as France, and while the Revolution would be quite interesting to play through, for once I don't want to see the world bathed in blue. :smallamused:

[Zenos]

Technically, it could be bathed in white, at least if you keep to the line of kings.

Dutch, eh? That will probably require you to make good use of the new diplomacy system. If we ever played the same campaign over the interwebz I would be happy to have an alliance with the UP.

EDIT: And from what I know, you won't be painting the world your own colour so much, since the other states would probably just team up on you so you don't get too powerful.

[Dragor]

Technically, it could be bathed in white, at least if you keep to the line of kings.

Dutch, eh? That will probably require you to make good use of the new diplomacy system. If we ever played the same campaign over the interwebz I would be happy to have an alliance with the UP.

EDIT: And from what I know, you won't be painting the world your own colour so much, since the other states would probably just team up on you so you don't get too powerful.

I stand corrected. :smallsmile:

And yeah, having a community of Empire players who get together and play campaigns? It sounds like a plan to me. Is the Empire multiplayer just co-op, or could you possibly even fill every 'slot' of nation for a player? Because that would just be amazing.



Call me a cynic if you will, but that is the standard industry excuse that is trotted out to explain away delays

I agree, but Creative Assembly are a bunch of nice Australians with a good sense of humour. Sega, on the other hand.... :smalltongue:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I agree, but Creative Assembly are a bunch of nice Australians with a good sense of humour. Sega, on the other hand.... :smalltongue:

The CA branch that is doing ETW are British. They're the ones that made RTW and RTW:BI (which had one of the best AI's in a TW game ever). The branch that made M2TW were the Aussies.

[Dragor]

The CA branch that is doing ETW are British. They're the ones that made RTW and RTW:BI (which had one of the best AI's in a TW game ever). The branch that made M2TW were the Aussies.

Oh! My bad. I suck. :smallredface:

Well, okay, they're a bunch of nice Brits. We're nice! When we're not rampaging around the world and enslaving people and having gross class imbalance and... oh.

And I second your comment about BI's AI. I had some truly amazing battles against that AI. After playing Rome for so long (against its easy-to-trick tactics) and constantly winning, I was in for a shock once I loaded up BI. They really did give me a hard time of it.

[Hawriel]

i saw a trailer for this game. It looks cool. Im still ceaping my fingers crossed for a Civil War Total war game. Then maybe just maybe a Great War.

[UnChosenOne]

The total war WWI would be awesome but the civil war (i expect that you mean the american civil war)? Nah.

[LoopyZebra]

The problem with a WW1 or later Total War game is that artillery and aircraft could affect the battlefield from so far away. The typical TW battlefield is, what, maybe a square mile? (Maybe? I honestly don't know the size of those battlefields.) Artillery and aircraft could easily be far outside of the battlefield proper for most of the battle.

And while this is not so much of a problem with WW1, later wars used small squad tactics that are better replicated in a game like Close Combat than Total War, which has, for the entire series, used big blocks and formations.

As for the American Civil War, I think it could easily fit in the Total War franchise, but it may have too narrow of a scope. It really had only the North and the South, and moreover, I think its popularity would sharply decline outside of the States.

[Zenos]

I think I remember that the size of the battlefields had been increased to 1.4 square kilometers in ETW. So the battlefields aren't all that large in TW games. I also agree that the long range death from above elements of warfare in the 20th century, not to mention the smaller unit sizes, are not really TWs groove.

[Zenos]

By the way, I think I want to try the Reverse Slope tactic. British/Prussian/Russian troops cross the ridge? Gaze into MAH BOOMSTICK!

*cough*