For all Total War Fans

there is a new one on the horizon The name is Empire Total War
Heres one
And here is the other, looking very cool

 

Thanks, that looks cool.

 

yeah, heard of it. should be pretty awesome, but i don't know how the tactics will work.

 

They finally learned that everyone hated how their past 4 Total War games don't allow players to control sea battles...

Honestly, with the introduction of gunpowder and new technology, I'd expect another HUGE drop in strategic variation; which will make the game even more boring than Medieval 2 Total War. I'd rather see something like Mythology: Total War or Rome 2: Total War. When Empire TW comes out, I'm not going to be someone who's going to buy it or play the demo.

 

Sounds cool, and it does seem like there might be a drop in varation of units, it shouldnt necessarily drop the level of "strategery" . When all nations have similar/fewer units it is going to be who has the best strategy that wins.

I am excited to play out battles in this game - little said that it wont make it to the Napoleanic wars, but that will prob be an expansion.

 

How can you have better strategy when almost every nation uses similar units? Even if they aren't similar, how different can they be? There're only foot soldier who use guns.

 

This might bring me back to total War. Dunno.

 

No, not all are the same. THe british have them weird fellers with the hat that's like ten feet tall. and the french have the 3 pointed hat. not all will be the same. youre just a downer on alot of things

 

hell yeah, now im excited

 

Because if the different nations have different units, then their are a lot of different tactical decisions to make based on what kind of units you have, and those decisions vary from nation to nation. You can set yourself up in a battle situation where your units are clearly superior, and strategy doesn't come into play as much. However when neither side has a tactical advantage based on unit type, you have to use a lot more strategy to win. At least that's how I've always thought of it. I really like the same units, it really brings me back to Shogun:TW (which was by far the best, IMHO).

 

Yeah 18th century linear fighting can´t be better, better practice on that flanking

 

But still. Brits vs. Frenchies? Nothing better than that.

 

And if different nations didn't have different units, then there would be no tactical decisions to make; there would only be: archers shoot, archers run, infantry pin down, cavalry flank. Hold on, there wouldn't be those since they're all using guns. It'd be like this: guns shoot, guns run, guns pin down, guns flank. Every nation should have its own tactical abilities difference from other nations, but unit difference doesn't mean Britain gets guns with 200attack early on while France only gets guns with 5 attack. Tactical difference not only means the (slight) variation in stats, but also units' special abilities and such. When you have unit variation, you have a lot more possibilities and a lot more strategies you can plan and improvise; when you don't have unit variation, there would still be strategies, but just a lot less. I think Rome TW is the best.

 

Exactly, that's why I said their would be less tactics, but more strategy. That's my view at least.

 

Not only French vs English, but count in Prussians too, Russian, Austrians, hopefully Swedes.

 

Now wait, in this game you have more advantages, you still have to be 10 feet apart to fight since guns weren't worth squat then, you can hide in buildings, but still just because guns came doesn't mean it's all about them. i mean, what about cannons, just the pure fun of hearing guys go boom. it makes it more stratigical because in order to flank, they have to be flankable, the computer is now more optimized to fight and plus if you stick the computer on very hard, you get screwed, they're so damn hard

 

i think you will find that you will still have cavelry, with sabres or whatever, then you got cavelry with those old crappy pistols, and then cavelry with muskets. then you still have pikemen......etc there is more variatin then you think.

 

OK, maybe I just have something against modern warfare, maybe, but what you described above, as a game, sounds very very boring and very similar to RTS strategy like Tiberium Wars and Company of Heroes and such games. OK, you got guns, and cannons, what else? Anything to boost or lower stats? Anything to boost or lower moral? Anything other than gunfire? I'm not picking fights with you, but I really hate how Creative Assembly made an awesome strategical and tactical rich Rome Total War and blew their name with Medieval 2 Total War (with every Christian nation having Feudal Knights, Dismounted Feudal Knights, Imperial Knights, Dismounted Imperial Knights, Peasant Archers, Archers) and now this Empire Total War with every nation having only guns and cannons. What strategy and tactics can you come up with guns and cannons?
Historically, ever since guns and cannons were used, there were no strategy when fighting the enemy - the two forces just charge at each other, point, and shoot. What happened to using fire? What happened to trebuchets and onagers? What happened to chanting? What happened to enchanting? What happened to warriors going berserk? What happened to cavalry charges? CA KILLED TW series!

 

Have you ever played Shogun: Total War, the quintessential total war game? It was excellent in that all nations got (basically) the same units, with a few different options depending upon religion and natural resources. The best strategy games (IMHO), are ones that don't have all that extra window-dressing, as the fewer unique features you have, the more you have to rely on pure strategy.

 

This is why we're arguing. In my opinion, the best strategy games (amongst TW games) is Rome Total War because there's a lot of things other countries have and you don't, which makes the game more interesting because you'd always have to think "OK, if I use this, then they might have the same unit, but if I use that unit, which only my faction has, they won't stand a chance" and when you fail you think "oh goddamnit, I'll try my other legion made up of different units."

 

This is where we differ I suppose. Having units which your opponent can't necessarily counter takes out alot of the strategy IMHO (though it adds tactical choice, which some prefer).

 

Well, by "they won't stand a chance" I mean they wouldn't have anything specifically to use against it, I don't mean that the unit is invincible. I think that this...

"OK, I'll use swordsman, but they're slow and enemy will counter with archers. OK so I'll use cavalry, but they'll charge right into enemy's swordsman. OK, so I'll use archers, but they're vulnerable to enemy cavalry. OK so I'll use swordsman to defend them, but they're weak against archers."

... is what makes a game boring to me.

 

Amen to that. The best part of the TW games is having thousands of little dudes hacking each other up. Just watching hundreds of units slam shield to shield against each other and watching cavalry skirmish against each other as two players probe for a weakness in a line. It totally gives a sense of being a "combat" officer rather than other RTSes that make you feel like a "logistics" officer.

 

You do have some valid points. In MTW II, the French should've had better knights and no archers (only Genoese crossbowmen), only the English should have had dismounted knights and longbowmen, the Germans should've had pikemen (Landsknechts), etc. They blew the chances both for realism and for strategic-tactical fun (either they all go at it and the biggest army wins, OR the defensive player wins by virtue of archery attrition gained by holding the high ground ... every battle is the same ... but, there's still the political-economic strategy element). In real life, Napoleanic warfare was basically "stand out in the open, shoot at each other, and the force that routs (panics) first loses. Any other model would be unrealistic, and the real thing makes for boring computer gaming. Also, in Napoleanic times, the units and equipment were essentially the same, but with the French having perhaps a tad better artillery & cavalry, the English better square infantry, the Prussions somewhat better muskets and drill, etc. Not much variation.

I'd rather see them take another stab at the dark ages (which they screwed up so terribly with Viking Invasion), perhaps focusing on the invasion of England by the Angles-Saxons-Jutes, then the subsequent Viking raids and invasions, and continuing through Charlemagne and up and until the Norman Conquest & Crusades (about where MTW II starts off). Just a thought.

 

Firstly I'll say to wait until the demo comes out, try it for free before you smash their efforts on a super early screenshot you saw. Sea warfare alone should add a huge new dimension to the game. Plenty of new strategy right there, with that one addition. Sea trade should be much more important as will blockades and control of sea routes now.

Secondly, there can be some variation between the units. Even two types of gunpowder units can have point value differences which creates variation and strategy right there. Add in calvary, cannons, etc and it should be fun.

I'm glad to see a game that will include colonization and the American Revolution That'll be one of my favorite parts, no doubt. Someone mentioned it stopped just short of Napoleon. I'm almost willing to guarantee you that Napoleon is the expansion pack It'll include Napolean and the War of 1812 here in the US too most likely.

This should be an exciting game. I didn't find Medieval as much fan as Rome because of the time period. I think this time period is perfect in Empires though.

 

Looks like it could be interesting... I wish they'd go back to the old-style (from MTW and STW) Risk-like campaign maps...

I really think trying to make a mini-Civilization on the campaign map (like MTW2 and RTW) detracts from the game.

 

There are two different types of strategy that we are talking about in this thread.
1. enemy has x, y z units and which of my units a, b, c will best combat them. I RTW had a lot of this (much more than M2TW)

2. I have 10 units fighting against 10 similar/same units. what formations/positioning..etc will i use to beat my opponent.

While the new TW might be lesser on the first type of strategy, it just means an increase in the second type. I guess its user preference on what you prefer more, but im excited to play a TW that takes place in this time period.