Next Total War on the horizon

[Arclight]

Sega Announce New Total War Title (http://kotaku.com/5340549/sega-announce-new-total-war-title)

Bit out of the blue, but there it is. Picking up were Empire left off, the next game is centered around Napoleons exploits. Considering it's not just focussed on an era but also on an individual, you can expect a more story-driven experience.

Release 2010.



I'd rather have seen this as an expansion for Empire, but no such luck. :-?

[Lionclaw]

Have they given up on Empire? Isn't it a bit early to announce the follower so soon after the previous title?


Oh well, their earlier games were better though. Too bad Medieval Total War doesn't work with Nvidia 8+ series with the mouse issues. That was a classic! :up:

Rome is up there as well, Medieval 2 is quite good now with the mods. :)

[Biggles]

Not a surprising era to proceed on, but it did happen early.

[Raptor1]

I hope it's not Steam only, that way I could enjoy the multiplayer without the Steam lobby bug they seem intent on not fixing.

Ah, well, let's see how it turns out.

[Richard G]

Empire was the 2nd worst game I've bought in the last 20 years. (the first being some Scottish Braveheart title I can't remember now). Gameplay, and game stability are complete crap.

If you want real historical Napoleon era warfare, you need Histwar (http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=125&Itemid=176).

[ReallyDedPoet]

(the first being some Scottish Braveheart title I can't remember now)

Yeah, that game on the surface had potential, but it was bad beyond
belief :dead::dead:

[Raptor1]

I think Empire is the best game ever made :yeah:

Fuff, don't make me laugh. ETW is a good game, but it lacks the historical scale needed, therefore it is a failure. All it does is represent medieval-era formation battles with guns and doesn't capture the feel of warfare at the time at all.

[Arclight]

Still, it's the only game I know that let's you fight battles like that. It has it's merrits, but I wouldn't go further than saying it's a good game within it's genre. :hmmm:

Make that decent, RTW is good. :D

[Task Force]

etw was lacking in some departments...

the sea battles were lacking... they didnt give the right scale... it looked kind of like a bathtub battle...

the land battles were way too small...

there were far too fiew regions. like I heard before, france is not made into regions, so all you have to do is capture paris

the units are extremly generic all the european line infantry units look the same...

it is a good game, just lacking... (and extremly unstable.)

*yes like raptor said too fiew regions.*

[Raptor1]

there were far too many regions. like I heard before, france is not made into regions, so all you have to do is capture paris


Too few, you mean.

[Melonfish]

WANTS IT PRECIOUS!


i've been waiting for this since medieval ffs! seriously i can't wait!

[SteamWake]

I thought the Napolian thing was just an expansion of ETW :06:

[karamazovnew]

How could you like Empire better than Rome? First of all, Empire was waaaaay to easy. I conquered the entire world map in 1762 with the brits and had to spend 37 years of end turn clicking. In the end I had fortified and upgraded EVERYTHING and still had millions to spare on the lowest tax possible. And that was on the hardest difficulty, I've never had to declare war on anyone, I was attacked on all sides.

The land battles were horrendous. I lost many generals because of my own idiotic cannons. Cavalry and cannons were almost useless and the only unit I've ever used was the line infantry. The AI made formation positioning and firing after movement so annoying that I usually won battles by selecting all units and charging in meelee. But even with all these issues I've won battles while being outnumbered 4 to 1. I laughed at every fortified army as I pounded they walls and killed them in the rubble. Empire sucked big time because of it's controls and friendly AI. I'm waiting for Europa Barbarorum 2.

[Raptor1]

That is real life mate...

Friendly fire is deadly.

Generals, who needs em? I see them useless, sure they give a TINY TINY boost of morale, but useless nonetheless.

Rome total war was just too easy to play campaign... I mean, a couple units in the start you have half of Europe at your knees.

Atleast in Empire, sure theres less regions but they're heavily defended.
ETW is historically accurate, not Rome.

ETW is about as close to historical accuracy as the Atlantic is to being a pond. Rome had some anachronisms and fantasy units, but at least the gameplay fit the era.

[Arclight]

I think an easier question would be "what makes it accurate?". :O:

I have to agree with Raptor; the gameplay is just most suited to Rome. I didn't like the addition of firearms in M2TW, and I certainly don't care for it in ETW. :nope:

Imho a good melee is far more interesting than people firing muskets at each other; they spend 3/4 of the time reloading, ie nothings happening. When I started playing, I just fired a single volley and then charged before they could reload anyway. :-?

[Raptor1]

What makes ETW so inaccurate than?

The scale. 2 armies standing in front of each other in a field got old in the 16th century, in the 18th century the scale of battles was much bigger so that the battlefield was usually several square miles big and things like towns, buildings, hills, rivers, roads had tactical importance. This makes pretty much any real strategy used at the time obsolete, because there is no maneuvering room, no real fog of war, no strategic positions on the field and so forth.

Ever wondered why Dragoons are as tactically useless as they are? It's because they were meant to be used in battles where their mobility as mounted infantry actually mattered.

As ETW is now, it's just like Rome or Medieval with guns.

[HunterICX]

The scale. 2 armies standing in front of each other in a field got old in the 16th century, in the 18th century the scale of battles was much bigger so that the battlefield was usually several square miles big and things like towns, buildings, hills, rivers, roads had tactical importance. This makes pretty much any real strategy used at the time obsolete, because there is no maneuvering room, no real fog of war, no strategic positions on the field and so forth.

This :yep:

and then we have the campaign itself which lacks a lot of things

-first of all whats with the random declaration of Wars....some are correct but most comes at complete random.

-also when a war is declared little effort by the enemy is made to be of a real threat.
also the lack of help by your allies is teethgrinding....

-the lack of provinces is just annoying.

-Sieges of cities, Wow..paris is a sight..just a random clustermess of buildings which do NOT represent a city at all.
it doesn't have to look like paris exactly...but what ETW shows is a unforgiving JOKE.
therefore the sieges imo are NO FUN to play.
if you take a real city with a city wall and give the oppurtunity for the defenders to barricade streets and stuff...it could become a big effort for the attacker to take over the city.

THIS is how a siege location should look like if attack a big town or city with defences.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4103/hanau2demerianhassiae.jpg

I can continue my rant forever but I rather enjoy the game what it offers and hopefully expansion or mods will fix the things that are missing from this game.

HunterICX

[Galanti]

The question that has been burning in my mind is why didn't they go with the Napoleonic era in the first place with ETW? Or at least extend the timeframe to 1815? The cynic in me supposes that NTW was always planned as an expansion.

My big beef with the TW series is the campaign engine. I know it's supposed to retain the chess-like charm of Shogun, but it's far too simple and generic for each game (excepting of course the Papacy/Crusade thing) and hasn't evolved nearly enough with each iteration of the franchise.

I'd like to marry the campaign engine from EU or even Knights of Honor to the battle engine in TW, that would be sweet.

[Arclight]

I'd say the cynic in you is right on the money. :yep:

And they need to keep the strategy element simple (not that the tactical stuff is that deep either) to keep casual gamers interested. More complex gameplay would push them in a niche, meaning less profit. :shifty: