New Total War game under development

[Safe-Keeper]

Anyone know if there will finally be a multi-player campaign?

[CCIP]

Man, just look at this

[flintlock]

Hey, I swear I saw a pericope.

[GlobalExplorer]

Calm down, CA has a hell of a task to keep their franchise alive, the fans are already dying of boredom.

And yes, I played all of them, from the original STW in 2000.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

Calm down, CA has a hell of a task to keep their franchise alive, the fans are already dying of boredom.

And yes, I played all of them, from the original STW in 2000.

Actually I still haven't bought M2TW (I also played all of them), but not cause I'm bored - rather because modded RTW is keeping me busy and I'm betting anything by the time I get to M2TW it will be modded enough as well.

Kinda unfortunate though that it's uncannily similar to SHIII/IV this way lately. It's the community keeping it alive more so than CA.

If I do have a computer that can play this decently, (mainly need a new processor then I be fine for awhile) and I do buy it, I hope we can be pirates....

[Janus]

Does anyone of you know the game "Imperialism"?
I would like to see a game that combines the economics- and diplomacy parts (the diplomacy part was not that well compared to TW nowadays but TW could transfer some of the aspects) part of Imperialsim with the battles part of the Total War games.

Who of you prefers the 2d strategic map with provinces/sectors rather than the 3d strategic map TW has been using since Rome? Both representations of the strategic map clearly have their pros and cons but I am a bit nostalgic about the 2d sectors approach so I tend to prefer this one.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Janus

Does anyone of you know the game "Imperialism"?
I would like to see a game that combines the economics- and diplomacy parts (the diplomacy part was not that well compared to TW nowadays but TW could transfer some of the aspects) part of Imperialsim with the battles part of the Total War games.

Europa Universalis?

You must also have a look at this one
http://www.a-acw.com/
its the best historic strategy game I have played since STW, and it has really nice 2d graphics. Not so much diplomacy however, but the grandest GP of all times.

Originally Posted by Janus

Who of you prefers the 2d strategic map with provinces/sectors rather than the 3d strategic map TW has been using since Rome? Both representations of the strategic map clearly have their pros and cons but I am a bit nostalgic about the 2d sectors approach so I tend to prefer this one.

Me. I also preferred that it was turn based. STW was also in each and every way more focussed and athmospheric than any of the later games.

CA claims to have considerably improved the AI in their upcoming EP as well as a completely rewritten AI in ETW. That and only that piece of information is keeping me interested in the series.

[Janus]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

Europa Universalis?

No the game is "Imperialism", here is its Wikipedia article.

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

You must also have a look at this one
http://www.a-acw.com/
its the best historic strategy game I have played since STW, and it has really nice 2d graphics. Not so much diplomacy however, but the grandest GP of all times.

Looks interesting, it seems to have WeGo which is great (Combat Mission fan here ).
I'll get the demo.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

Looks interesting, it seems to have WeGo which is great (Combat Mission fan here ).

I'll get the demo.

Yes WeGo it is, and the AI is not only very competent, but still improving with every patch.

This is a game for grown up players, not for kids, and (as nearly all games are made for kids nowadays) that takes time to sink in. I was close to giving up after playing the demo, cause it was kinda shocking to see how hard a game can be. It pays off though when you realize the wealth of options you have. You wont be playing lots of camapigns, but the one you play will take forever, so much that you'll know all about your divisions by heart. I defeated the South in my one and only campaign and it took weeks. Looking forward to my first campaign as the Rebels, which will be harder.

[TteFAboB]

The 2D map offered better gameplay. Although you can move freely in the 3D map this ability serves no purpose. You can never move enough to run away from an enemy army and attacking from behind makes no difference. It just made it easier for the player to defend his territory, while in the 2D map you were always at the verge of being annihilated or loosing a bunch of provinces after making one simple mistake. It was chess, versus tic-tac-toe. You always know the result of the game in RTW, as in tic-tac-toe: you're going to win, inevitably. And loosing battles is irrelevant. So what? You have 10 turns to raise another army untill an enemy stack threatens you, and you have both the money and the population to do it with no stress.

The 3D map is useless with a turn-based system and impracticable in real-time.

Perhaps something could be said even about the 2D sprites. Is it an impression that STW and MTW's maps are larger? RTW's are certainly tiny. How about the battle itself? It seems RTW gives me very organized battles between one tight bunch of troops versus another tight bunch, while in STW when enemy groups meet things tend to get a chaotic and disorganized.

M2TW looks nice and has gameplay improvements over RTW, no doubt, so I hope things continue to improve without further degradation of the strategic element, which could be outright removed and replaced for a scripted campaign, like STW and MTW actually had, if all you can do is choose in which order you'll attack and defeat your enemies.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by TteFAboB

The 2D map offered better gameplay. Although you can move freely in the 3D map this ability serves no purpose. You can never move enough to run away from an enemy army and attacking from behind makes no difference. It just made it easier for the player to defend his territory, while in the 2D map you were always at the verge of being annihilated or loosing a bunch of provinces after making one simple mistake. It was chess, versus tic-tac-toe. You always know the result of the game in RTW, as in tic-tac-toe: you're going to win, inevitably. And loosing battles is irrelevant. So what? You have 10 turns to raise another army untill an enemy stack threatens you, and you have both the money and the population to do it with no stress.

The 3D map is useless with a turn-based system and impracticable in real-time.

Perhaps something could be said even about the 2D sprites. Is it an impression that STW and MTW's maps are larger? RTW's are certainly tiny. How about the battle itself? It seems RTW gives me very organized battles between one tight bunch of troops versus another tight bunch, while in STW when enemy groups meet things tends to get a chaotic and disorganized.

M2TW looks nice and has gameplay improvements over RTW, no doubt, so I hope things continue to improve without further degradation of the strategic element, which could be outright removed and replaced for a scripted campaign, like STW and MTW actually had, if all you can do is choose in which order you'll attack and defeat your enemies.

I agree. In STW everything was streamlined and perfectly balanced and it actually was like playing chess. I could still name each and every unit and tell you its strengths and weaknesses and why it was needed in the game. It was possibly the best game I ever played.

What they did was make the chessboard larger and add a lot of superfluous samey pieces = something like RTW. It had nice graphics but the gameplay was a step back.

[Oberon]

....I'm sold...unfortunately my computer isn't...but...whoa

All together now...

"Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules..."

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I found Medieval 2 disappointing concerning the game itself, weaknesses of the fomrer games carried over instead of deleting them, and the patching anyway, and so I do not hold my breath for EmpireTW. Think the series will move on without me from now on.

I may follow you on this one - Can't bring myself to want to play MII, especially since I have Rome! I definitely won't buy it till they do a couple patches, and only then will I evaluate the situation. THe TW series has been one to leave glaring holes left unpatched.

-S

[Safe-Keeper]

TteFAboB: I actually agree with you on the old map system versus the new one.

I would like to see a game that combines the economics- and diplomacy parts (the diplomacy part was not that well compared to TW nowadays but TW could transfer some of the aspects) part of Imperialsim with the battles part of the Total War games.

For whatever it's worth, Victoria is mostly based on economics and running a country, rather than on fighting wars.