Empire: Total War Page 3

  • Page

    of 54 First / Last

  • Articulate-Troll 20 May 2008 17:48:25 3,101 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    ratso wrote:
    any new screens or info on this?

    Seems to have gone under the radar.

    There's an interview with IGN that they did recently, but since the games have never been released more than 2 years apart you probably won't have long till a preview emerges.
  • Mr_Sleep 20 May 2008 17:58:13 17,396 posts
    Seen 28 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Thing is, I'm kind of looking forward to this but I've really lost interest in the series as it has gone on. My favourite so far has actually been the first one. I just feel like the game is getting too big and I can't really be bothered to devote the time necessary to become emporer of the world. I was happy being emperor of Feudal Japan. So yeah, I agree with the other people asking for Shogun 2, it'd be awesome and more fun I reckon.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Articulate-Troll 20 May 2008 18:25:59 3,101 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Mr Sleep wrote:
    Thing is, I'm kind of looking forward to this but I've really lost interest in the series as it has gone on. My favourite so far has actually been the first one. I just feel like the game is getting too big and I can't really be bothered to devote the time necessary to become emporer of the world. I was happy being emperor of Feudal Japan. So yeah, I agree with the other people asking for Shogun 2, it'd be awesome and more fun I reckon.

    I have to disagree with the idea of remaking Shogun; it was pretty well rounded the first time and I can't see what a remake would add to it. I also have fond memories of conquering Feudal Japan but that's probably more due to nostalgia, and I'm sure if I booted it up again my memories would very likely be destroyed by 2d sprites and same-ish units.

    The biggest killer with Medieval 2, for me at least has been the monotony of conquering city after city, castle after castle using the same strategy of:

    1) Knock a hole in the wall with catapult/cannon.
    2) Send infantry through hole, engaging the enemy.
    3) Rout the enemy to the centre, where inevitably 90% of the enemy remains.
    4) Watch in annoyance as your brave flanking cavalry gets slaughtered by the morale invincible centre troops.
    5) Defeat them by slowly overwhelming them, a process made much slower by the que etiquette system, that makes troops at the back of the units stand around like they're observing a spectator sport.

    This is largely the fault of the campaign AI that always seems keen to start a war, but never wants to actually launch an invasion with more than one army. Thus your constantly forced to spend 90-95% of battles trying to take every town and castle because they refuse to either accept peace or properly fight back.

    I'm intrigued by Empire, and from what I've heard they're really going for decent campaign AI and diplomacy, so rather than demanding a return to the feudal age, I'll definately be giving this a shot (and who can deny that conquering America with the Ottoman empire wouldn't be cool?).
  • Mr_Sleep 20 May 2008 19:28:27 17,396 posts
    Seen 28 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not necessarily remaking Shogun, I'd say just expand it to be a larger campaign, bung the newer engine in there and remake the units. That'd do it for me, tweak the principle and improve upon it. Either that or make campaigns of smaller wars, like the Napoleonic or central European affairs. I'm just tired of having to put quite so much work into it, a global affair will just be a bit painful I feel. I finished one campaign on Rome and I haven't played Medieval 2 as Rome was such a slog that I figure it would be even worse. Though I keep meaning to pick it up anyway, just for completists sake I think.

    Though, they might surprise me and make it more streamlined and accessible, it's always possible. managing an entire planet just seems like a hell of a lot of work, more than I have time for and it'd take a year for me to get anywhere.

    Diplomacy has always been the secondary idea in the Total War series from what I can see, so it might be interesting to see it in effect. Pretty soon Civilisation and Total war are going to be very similar :-)

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Deleted user 20 May 2008 19:43:38
    Well they're definitely streamlining a bit. Things like diplomacy won't require tinkering around with units any more. Whether this is just so they can replace it with other micro-management stuff remains to be seen - the campaign stuff is always the last to get out.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 12:31:42
    Aw fucknuggets. :(

    Unsurprising, but still...
  • DodgyPast 6 Jun 2008 14:39:14 8,549 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Intrigued by the SPace Seige thing they mention, anyone know anything about that?
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 15:57:40 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Both Rome and Medieval II have atrocious AI, pathfinding and unit cohesion.

    Shogun: Total War is by far the best in the series.

    The AI produced a challenge.
    The campaign wasn't so long that you ended up WoW-Style grinding to finish everyone off.
    The atmosphere was better.
    The music was better (apart from Medieval 1). Rome and MTW II's music is just too 'Hollwoodised', Van Dyck made me sad.
    Superior MP community.

    My crowning opinion is that Shoguns graphics were better too. Yes thats right, they were better. Got bored of zooming into units within 3 seconds, who the fook needs it?

    Unforutnately, due to the wonderful 8 Series graphics cards, I can no longer play my best loved RTS anymore.

    As for Empire... why make America playable? They're gonna have a country for the last 1/5 of the game, what is the point? The Euro gaming markets bigger now CA, take'em out!!
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 16:05:36
    The main thing that the Rome-era games are missing is the line of sight from the Shogun-era.

    Being able to hide your units just over the ridge, that frantic search trying to mop up routing units without being ambushed: all fucking awsome!
  • glaeken 6 Jun 2008 16:15:29 11,266 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Talbot wrote:

    As for Empire... why make America playable? They're gonna have a country for the last 1/5 of the game, what is the point? The Euro gaming markets bigger now CA, take'em out!!

    Empire is Napoleonic era isn't it? As such I don't see an issue having America playable as they were quite active during that period. Depending on how broad the time frame goes you have the war of indepedance and the war of 1812 which were both fairly major events of the times.
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 16:28:12 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Perhaps if the game continued onto 1900 then yes. I just think working around the politics and mechanics of the 13 Colonies as a special case will divert attention away from the 'real' Empires.

    The American War of 1812, although crucial in deciding who 'ruled' Upper and Lower Canada, was a tick on a bull compared to Napoleons campaign into Russia.
  • glaeken 6 Jun 2008 16:39:26 11,266 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I can see what you are saying I just want the chance to take the war of 1812 a little further :)

    I think you would at least want to include the America's on the map from a trade perspective as I think the naval aspect of interfering with other factions shipping was a pretty important strategy of the day.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 16:45:52
    From what CA are saying I get the impression that they're looking much more at things like emerging factions this time around, as well as different victory conditions and whatnot.

    Plus I'd be banking on a War of Independace expansion pack in future anyway.
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 17:06:17 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    I can see what you are saying I just want the chance to take the war of 1812 a little further :)

    I think you would at least want to include the America's on the map from a trade perspective as I think the naval aspect of interfering with other factions shipping was a pretty important strategy of the day.

    Oh yes, I never said anything about not having the 13 Colonies there at all, my dispute is just with them being playable. If the British Colonials can revolt and become playable, why not the Spanish Colonials in South America?

    Interestingly, the British profited far more from the newly formed United States than it ever did when it was under British rule.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 17:10:50
    Because although the European market may be bigger than the US one, I don't think South America's is yet. :)

    Edit: though things like revolts haven't really been explained yet, so you never know!
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 17:14:07 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    disussedgenius wrote:
    Because although the European market may be bigger than the US one, I don't think South America's is yet. :)

    I orchestrated your response perfectly :D

    Personally, I just feel that CA might pander to the US market a little too much thus tarnishing the final product.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 17:21:42
    Yeah, I did feel myself being given a small push!

    To be honest though it's way too early to tell. There won't be any concrete details for aaaaaagggess yet. I don't even think they've confirmed how many playable factions there'll be in total, let alone how rebellions/revolutions will work.

    I'll have to show my ignorance as well; what was going on in the way of rebellion down south during this time period? Were there any recognisable countries formed by it?
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 17:31:46 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    disussedgenius wrote:
    Yeah, I did feel myself being given a small push!

    To be honest though it's way too early to tell. There won't be any concrete details for aaaaaagggess yet. I don't even think they've confirmed how many playable factions there'll be in total, let alone how rebellions/revolutions will work.

    I'll have to show my ignorance as well; what was going on in the way of rebellion down south during this time period? Were there any recognisable countries formed by it?

    Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2008 17:59:08
    Talbot wrote:
    Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.
    With my newfound(land) Wikipedia knowledge, that sounds to me more like a revolution than a rebellion to me. Which is something they've already announced as a game mechanic anyway.
  • Articulate-Troll 6 Jun 2008 20:20:51 3,101 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    You're all wrong time wise; the game's set roughly between the early seventeen hundreds and early eighteen hundreds so just up until the time of Napoleon. Apparently going the US will allow you to play as a "founding father" (god I hate self worshipping American terminology) and it sounds like they are indeed pandering to the US market. Hopefully they'll redeem the situation by making you start at a later date which will at least be a little bit more realistic.

    I'm not sure it matters though, as surely most Eurogamers will be going their country of origin, and giving the US a good kick in.
  • FWB 6 Jun 2008 20:25:27 45,652 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well Americans accept that they have no history and thus can't expect to be in anything dated past the last two hundred years?
  • Talbot 6 Jun 2008 21:16:20 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    disussedgenius wrote:
    Talbot wrote:
    Argentina is a notable example. That was mainly the doing of the British, because they launched 2 ill fated expeditions to South America but they both ended in withdrawal. Because the Spanish did nothing to help, this basically spurred on the various independance movements.
    With my newfound(land) Wikipedia knowledge, that sounds to me more like a revolution than a rebellion to me. Which is something they've already announced as a game mechanic anyway.

    I'm confused now, the two go hand in hand, my brain may explode if this conversation gets any more intellectual.

    Truk wrote:
    Wait. What? I was thinking I'd bring STW into work for a bit of lunch time action, what with my Medieval II game getting a bit stagnant and your description getting me excited, but I've got an 8800 in my work machine.

    Why doesn't it work? Please don't tell me they've deprecated driver stuff. :-(

    Alas, the entire 8 Series of Nvidia graphics cards has a serious snobbery problem with older games and Shogun is no exception. Basically, all kinds of weird rubbish takes place, such as no units appearing on the battlefield and when you select units and order them somewhere on the map they will go in completely the opposite direction. There are no fixes as such and these problems are continuous. Consequently Shogun is unplayable.


    Articulate-Troll wrote:
    I'm not sure it matters though, as surely most Eurogamers will be going their country of origin, and giving the US a good kick in.

    Oh there is no question about that.

    EDIT: No question at all.
  • Deleted user 7 June 2008 00:27:56
    Talbot wrote:
    I'm confused now, the two go hand in hand, my brain may explode if this conversation gets any more intellectual.
    Don't worry; I'm talking purely in terms of things that CA have spoken about. Nothing vaguely intellectual! :)

    They've mentioned emerging factions and whatnot already (like the 13 Colonies), but also stuff like the French Revolution. They seem to be two different problems that will crop up, I guess to do with different government types.
  • Talbot 8 Jun 2008 11:48:53 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Well the game has been delayed now 'till next year so finding out how they may go about working these things out is hard to tell. Bit skeptical.
  • Articulate-Troll 8 Jun 2008 11:55:52 3,101 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'm glad they're delaying it, Medieval 2 was rushed and full of bugs (although it's a bit better with recent patches) so I've no problem with them spending a bit of time ironing out the faults.
  • Metalfish 8 Jun 2008 11:56:07 8,874 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hopefully it won't need as much patching as Medieval 2 did. Last year a fellow player was astounded to see me use a single unit of ultra light cavalry to kill an entire army of elite billmen....
  • Deleted user 8 June 2008 12:27:49
    Ah yes; the old two-handed weapons bug. I'd forgotten about that one. :/
  • urban 8 Jun 2008 12:36:47 11,070 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    i knew it'd get delayed, TBC 200x always means 200x +1
  • Talbot 8 Jun 2008 18:26:09 62 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I genuinely cannot believe they over-looked something like the 2 handed bug. Englands most formidable troops were rendered utterly useless, it was an Australian pommy hating ploy I tell ya.

  • Metalfish 8 Jun 2008 18:30:54 8,874 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It also neutered the vangarian guard and those elite egyptian axemen (their only heavy infantry) making noth sides much less prepared for the Mongol invasion. What with Mongol hordes best beaten with either more archers than they have or troops of serious quality.
  • Page

    of 54 First / Last

Log in or register to reply