Like all TW games.........

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Frillan the Outnumbered		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 16 04/26/09 03:44:45	Modestus is spot on with his reply.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
RJcfc		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 925 04/26/09 07:55:11	RJcfc wrote: The main selling point of TW games is definately the real-time battles. OP, what would you suggest they change about the series?? I'm not sure I agree with that. To me the campaign map is where the more interesting things happen. The campaign map makes the real time fun, not the other way round. Well i'll be honest, if TW games didn't have quality real time battles then I wouldn't be buying TW games. There's other games out there that can offer more depth when it comes to areas such as the campaign map. There isn't much depth in the actual running of an empire in TW games.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Hidden Gunman		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 889 04/26/09 16:06:41	Frillan the Outnumbered wrote: The only thing you have to do to win the game, is to to conquer provinces/cities. Doing that, you get some nice taxes which you can use to build armies to conquer new provinces/cities.< Here the pattern reveal itself. Thats the downfall of ALL TW games. Fix this and the game will ROCK! More strategies and more fun! Just a thought. Yep, a win should require you to develop your nation to the point of having rock bands, which you then showcase on MTV and conquer the world by promoting your own brand of fizzy drinks and blue jeans.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
dge1		#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 365 04/26/09 22:04:12	I agree with RJcfc. I play TW for the battles. I thought Rome TW was great for setting up a continuous open field battle enviroment. Medieval II was also good but freguently would develop into a castle/town taking drag. Diplomacy in both was OK for getting map information, and keeping someone on a string for awhile, but the battle play is what I wanted. Without a good chance for some decent battles I wouldn't be playing. Thanks.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
macmert		#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 562 04/26/09 23:59:15	Well any TW game can not be even compared to the civ series, on campaign levels or the depth of game, there is no other game that can be compared with civ... But the thing about civ is the battles are dependant on rock-paper-scissors choices, for horses bring pikes, for cities, bring catapults, for machine guns, bring marines and such... but the name is self explenatory, Total War, so you need to war in order to achieve things. Or if you like huge battles, play naval battles civ can not satisfy you... But if you want to be a politican and play the games of diplomacy, or high tech trading, civ is your game... as a long time civ player, I admit that I love to see that my cavalary charge through the ranks of petty infantry, or hunt down the last man on the battle map, but when I want something more, I turn to civ4, which I buy a nation to go to war with another or have a good trading partner that I share knowlegde with... But I wish ETW's diplomacy would be more active...
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Modestus		#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1249 04/27/09 01:03:51	Total war military strategists at work.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
thomas main		#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 587 04/27/09 02:17:43	Absolutely not, the Total War war series has always had a fixed rule about not producing over cerebral games. They have genuine concern that if any part of the game is too challenging or just a bit hard to understand or slightly difficult. Then they may do permanent damage to the brains of their fanbase. "Just a thought" Please stop thinking so hard you might hurt yourself.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Traian		#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1253 04/27/09 02:21:33 Veles	Ike wrote: Okay. How do you win, using only diplomacy, in this context: I have 8 full stack armies you have one. I want to invade and conquer your faction's final last region. Negotiate? Diplomacy? Cannot possibly outweigh an 8 - 1 military advantage. Oh, wait; you can get allies who will defend you. Nice, but that only delays the final outcome and maybe changes which faction it is that you face, down 8-1, without allies to defend you. shrug I know, I know: "Violence never settles anything." Right. We'll have a formal debate. The jury will be the Great Auk, the Dodo, the Passenger Pigeon, the 1.5 or so million Armenians killed by the Turks in the early 20th Century, the 6 to 10 million "undesireables" killed by the Nazis in the mid-20th Century, and the - what? - about 1 million Darfurians killed by their own government here recently. We'll let Attila the Hun argue one side and Adolph Hitler argue the other, with Iosev Stalin and Tamur-the-Lame be their seconds. Guesses as to the outcome? This is Wargame not a game of patty-cake. It is based upon and is a faint echo of man's most violent activity and that isn't marriage. You're correct in that military strength is one of the most vital factors contributing to power (and always has been) but you underestimate the importance of the others. If your 8 massive armies were sitting on his border and the diplomacy worked properly he would have made lots of friends already and signed deals with them to ensure they declare war on you if you invade. If nobody wanted to be his ally he could at the very least ask one of the other great powers if he could be their protectorate. Assuming the AI was sensible and porgrammed to understand the balance of power concept, his protector would move 8 massive armies of his own into the territory and sit them across the border from your ones. You wouldn't dare walk in there unless you wanted a bloody and costly war for very little gain. Allied powers to these could then actively cut off your trade routes and strangle your economy (which should be made up more from trade than taxes) which would deny you the ability to replace the forces that were crushed in the 8 army vs 8 army war. Alienate yourself and you should end up like North Korea. That's what happens in reality.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
DrakeRH	Europa: Total Civ	#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 301 04/27/09 06:06:58	RJcfc wrote: The point to Total War games is not to win through diplomacy or economy .... It wouldn't be a bad thing though, for TW games to incorporate the above features aswell. Yes it would be a bad idea, and in fact it IS a bad idea because that is exactly what they have done. More diplomacy is a good thing of course (" … war is the continuation of politics by other means…" Clausewitz) , but the current trade and research nonsense is just annoying. The problem with E:TW is that they tried to mimic both Civ and Europa Universalis. Imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery, imitation is the sincerest form of mediocrity. The best parts of E:TW are the parts you can find in Rome and/or Med2. The junk they copied from Civ and EU turned a first rate wargame into a second rate hermaphrogamic wannabe.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
davidshawkaz		#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2769 04/27/09 06:10:42	That's a tad subjective. I like the new technology feature even though I don't like the rest of the game, or most of it. They have to do things differently or add more complexity or they're just churning out the same with better graphics.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
DrakeRH		#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 301 04/27/09 06:24:48	The army Napoleon led to Waterloo in 1815 was not significantly different from the army Marlborough led to Blenheim in 1704. Tactics had changed a little, and technology not at all. The Brits had rifles … big deal. For that we need a technology tree? If you want to play with technology, play Civ. The trade is complicated and unnecessary. But you know, I would not object to either of these ideas if they had given me the option of automating it by use of a Trade Minister and a Tech Minister. "Your Minister of Trade requests an additional merchant ship. Cost 400. Shall we give it to him?" YES/NO. If you want tech, play Civ. If you want trade, play Europa. But if you want a first class wargame, play TW. At least that is how it used to be. CA/SEGA actually sacrificed what they did best (wargame) to become a second rate tech game, mushed with a second rate economy game, mushed with a second rate wargame. Same game with better graphics would be worth the money. But this thing ...Bleh!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
normandymaster		#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1682 04/27/09 06:38:51	DrakeRH wrote: The army Napoleon led to Waterloo in 1815 was not significantly different from the army Marlborough led to Blenheim in 1704. Tactics had changed a little, and technology not at all. The Brits had rifles … big deal. For that we need a technology tree? If you want to play with technology, play Civ. The trade is complicated and unnecessary. But you know, I would not object to either of these ideas if they had given me the option of automating it by use of a Trade Minister and a Tech Minister. "Your Minister of Trade requests an additional merchant ship. Cost 400. Shall we give it to him?" YES/NO. If you want tech, play Civ. If you want trade, play Europa. But if you want a first class wargame, play TW. At least that is how it used to be. CA/SEGA actually sacrificed what they did best (wargame) to become a second rate tech game, mushed with a second rate economy game, mushed with a second rate wargame. Same game with better graphics would be worth the money. But this thing ...Bleh! I think you're more a Command and Conquer player than a TW's. The tech tree is a nice add which asks to be enhanced. What you're saying is that the GC map is a pretext to 3D battles, which is only partly true. The interest of TW is that battles are great but more than that they're done to reach goals. Goals you have to reach to win (win conditions) and goals you create yourself. Only TW allow us to play battles to reach something higher than just winning a battle. If I'm playing any faction I can choose to take over Europe or not at all. Freedom is the key ,trade and techs allow more freedom, they're in the game to try to make every GC different. Why do we have to choose between TW, Civ and EU btw, why not have all them in one game?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
DrakeRH		#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 301 04/27/09 06:57:20	"Why do we have to choose between TW, Civ and EU btw, why not have all them in one game?" Why FORCE me to micromanage trade? Why FORCE me to play with that silly tech tree. Why call this game "Total War"? When you sacrifice your core competency to mimic your competition, you fail. Empire:Total War is a pefect example. The tech research element of this game makes no sense. Not over the course of 100 years. The research and trade and associated complexity may make micromanagers happy, but for the rest of us, more complicated is not automatically better. I want to play a game, not put on my green eyeshade and become a CPA for the long gone Prussian Empire.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
bicepboy888		#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 216 04/27/09 06:57:38	I'd like to add my 10 cents... OP, you can't 'win' (in total war standards)by being diplomatic, even in the real world. Think about what you are saying, you want to 'win' a campaign by using a well balanced economy and good diiplomacy, but the only way to 'win' as in end a campaign in TW is to conquer every province.... you see how what you want is as impossible as having a rectangular circle? Now, im not defending TW as to say its perfect, but you gotta understand, the game doesnt force you to do anything. If you want to be diplomatic and an economic powerhouse, go ahead and do it, dont conquer everybody. And dont say its impossible, ive done it with both england and austria. Of course you'll need military might to stop enemy invasions, but then again EVERY COUNTRY in the real world has a military..... wonder why? In the end you'll have what you want, a nation that never expands but has a massive treasury and very good diplomatic relations with everybody. Empire is the FIRST TW that you can really do this in, as in previous ones, as soon as you touched borders with the enemy, they went into a crazy bloodlust rampage against you, never listing to your diplomatic proposals, whearas in empire there is as chance they'll listen. Just be warned.... the diplomatic/economic path gets REALLY boring.....
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
davidshawkaz		#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2769 04/27/09 07:03:28	We play on our strengths, I can complete the game without looking at trade really if I wish. I can win through land conquests on mainland Europe. I could be wrong but I don't think you're a historian, that's no offense but I believe there were many changes in this period especially in terms of philosophy that of course as an impact on society. I think 'Brits had rifles' doesn't quite describe the changes of warfare over this period are you forgetting the importance of professional light troops? Do you not think better bayonets had an impact on this type of warfare? Plus wasn't the industrial revolution going on adding more and more forms of technology that totally changed those societies taking advantage of it? I do want a tech tree and I want it in ETW and so did others. Your argument is similar to someone saying 'But I wanted it to be set in Roman times.' May be some people agree but CA get feedback about the game and make their decision. You've just been out voted and that's life. It's worth remembering that by complaining you make yourself less free .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Phalanyxx		#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 472 04/27/09 07:05:22	AviramG wrote: It shouldn't stay a choice. It's the core of the game. If you %!*+ too many nations off (or don't actively try to make friends and appease possible enemies) they should gang up on you and you'd lose. If you don't manage your economy smartly, you shouldn't be able to keep up with the other factions, and thus lose also. What do you want, an excessively easy game that doesn't try to emulate reality in any way and has no complexity? The lack of complex diplomacy really hurts the overall campaign. As stated, you can pretty much do whatever you want, attack any Faction, attack multiple factions, at any time, and the other AI nations will NEVER form a coalition and go to war against the human player. AI nations sit idly bye, and let the human player steamroll the map. They could stop trading with the human player, form alliances, ect. I'd love to see my Allies say "withdraw your forces from region XXX, or we will withdraw from our Alliance, and cut all economic trade". Even if AI figures out how to actually attack the human player, and defend their own territories, the pure lack of realistic diplomacy(AI working with other AI nations), the campaign will still be a cakewalk for the human player. Last Edited By: Phalanyxx 04/27/09 07:07:45. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
DrakeRH		#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 301 04/27/09 07:41:24	davidshawkaz wrote: You've just been out voted and that's life. You are correct, I have been out voted. Instead of making tactical battles better, we get research. Instead of making the AI better, we get micromanaged trade. Good thing they spent their development time working on the important things. Huzzah!!
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Donald Hawker		#38	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1 04/27/09 07:48:03	Phalanyxx wrote: The lack of complex diplomacy really hurts the overall campaign. As stated, you can pretty much do whatever you want, attack any Faction, attack multiple factions, at any time, and the other AI nations will NEVER form a coalition and go to war against the human player. AI nations sit idly bye, and let the human player steamroll the map. They could stop trading with the human player, form alliances, ect. I'd love to see my Allies say "withdraw your forces from region XXX, or we will withdraw from our Alliance, and cut all economic trade". Even if AI figures out how to actually attack the human player, and defend their own territories, the pure lack of realistic diplomacy(AI working with other AI nations), the campaign will still be a cakewalk for the human player. Oh, come on. Developing all that would have taken time away from creating the nifty tech tree, the nifty trade system, and all the complex interdependencies between wanting to improve your farm and having the technology to build a fence. There's just no pleasing us. (note: Donald Hawker = DrakeRH. I accidentally created two accounts when I confused my password. This is not an attempt to decieve. Sorry for the mix up.) Last Edited By: Donald Hawker 04/27/09 07:53:10. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
davidshawkaz		#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2769 04/27/09 08:13:01	DrakeRH wrote: davidshawkaz wrote: You've just been out voted and that's life. You are correct, I have been out voted. Instead of making tactical battles better, we get research. Instead of making the AI better, we get micromanaged trade. Good thing they spent their development time working on the important things. Huzzah!! Nicely over simplified.. each department worked on their own thing. There's no excuse for the bad ai, it wasn't because they added extra features they had 5 years! They either don't have the skill to do the ai or they just don't have the will. It's nothing to do with techs.. Last Edited By: davidshawkaz 04/27/09 09:37:20. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Modestus		#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1249 04/27/09 08:37:14	OK tactical battles could be a little better but do people really think that this alone is going to give the player a challenge? CA are never going to make an AI that could really challenge a player on the battlefield but what they can do is create a strategy game that challenges the player to deliver that army to the battlefield in the first place. In most good strategy games this is done by needing the player to manage an economy in such away that hard choices have to be made for example between quantity or quality or sea and land, part of this is technological choices none of this is necessary in Empires. A working Diplomatic system can be used to prevent unlimited expansion without consequences, in Empires this is not working so you have no real consequences when you expand. In the end this means you can deliver to the battlefield an army that is numerically and technologically superior to the AI, result game over in fact game not even started there never was going to be a game.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Like all TW games.........

Quick Reply