Topic: Empire: Total War?

[NuclearWessels]

Just curious - it sounds up my alley, but anyone tried it out yet?

dave

[FPF-Paladin]

I was looking into this too... same type of game I usually gravitate to.  Right now I'm playing between Company of Heroes and Sins of a Solar Empire...

[el-Karnak]

I have been dabbling, off and on, with  Medieval II:Total War, but not enough time to really give the game justice due to very limited available game-playing time band-width. 

The game has 2 components:

• Turn-based strategy
• Real-time tactics

The campaign game is very long but you have the option to play the individual tactical battles in a simulator that is about as good as the "Battle for Middle-Earth 2 series". I would say the major difference in the game between Age of Kings, BOFME2 and this game is that there is no spawning of new units and  morale factors are used to route units.  Basically, a very close simulation of an actual battle.

Empire:Total War appears to be built along these lines except for the addition of naval battle simulation which is not included the past Total War games. The wiki write-up on the game hints that the naval combat simulator is difficult to use though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire:_Total_War

[Age]

I have been dabbling, off and on, with  Medieval II:Total War, but not enough time to really give the game justice due to very limited available game-playing time band-width. 

The game has 2 components:

• Turn-based strategy
• Real-time tactics

The campaign game is very long but you have the option to play the individual tactical battles in a simulator that is about as good as the "Battle for Middle-Earth 2 series". I would say the major difference in the game between Age of Kings, BOFME2 and this game is that there is no spawning of new units and  morale factors are used to route units.  Basically, a very close simulation of an actual battle.

Empire:Total War appears to be built along these lines except for the addition of naval battle simulation which is not included the past Total War games. The wiki write-up on the game hints that the naval combat simulator is difficult to use though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire:_Total_War

I know why you liked it as the common place it has with AoS.1 and 2, Sealords

[FPF-DieHard]

it sucks, I don't like it at all but I LOVE Medieval 2 total war.   The battles just aren't as cool.

[Commander La'ra]

Whatever dude.  I'll take my bad-ass howitzers over your puny ballistae any day.

[Dracho]

I hate the Steam component to launch and update, but otherwise it's fine.

[Lono]

Have the new patches fixed a lot of the problems - I'm a little bumbed because this game is getting horrible reviews by users compared to the others in the series...

(and I was lookin to gettin' it soon)

If it's not fixed tho - I'd rather wait till it is - or mods fix it next year - any advice?

[Dracho]

They're already advertising Napoleonic Wars for 2010.

[candle_86]

Ok i am an avid total war player here, Emprie is good, but the focus is a little to strong on navel combat, very little got added to unit combat, unit combat plays almost excatly like it did in Medieval and Rome, with the exception of garrions in buildings. One of the big reasons people dont like it as much, is simple, watching 2 lines of infantry in formation shoot each other isnt as fun as watching them get entagled and swinging swords at each other. Graphics are nice, but it just doesnt feel as fun as the earlier titles did, this is also what made late game ME2 also less enjoyable was when people started using handcannons and muskets making your sword armed infantry pointless then ya just get to watch them shoot at each other. Though Calvary is still fun, you can still charge through a line, though a frontal attack is likly to route your calvary. If you want to play TotalWar id look at rome or ME2 as Empire isnt its shining moment

[Dracho]

Combat in Empire is very much about the 3 F's... Fix 'em, flank 'em, finish 'em.

[candle_86]

wihout the getting down and dirty and lobbing there heads off part

[Father Ted]

it sucks, I don't like it at all but I LOVE Medieval 2 total war.   The battles just aren't as cool.

Speaking of the Total War series, I'm finally going to be able to shell out some money for a new PC game, and I've been looking at Medieval 2 Gold and Rome Gold. Any reason why one is better than the other, or are they rougly the same when it comes to strategy and gameplay?

[Dracho]

M2TW has the conquest of the Americas in it.

The thing with Empire too, is that you should employ the tactics of the time.  Muskets were not accurate...they'd exchange a few volleys then it was bayonets.

I like to fix the line with volleys from a line infantry, then charge the flank with a militia unit or cavalry.  More often than not the enemy units charge before I do.

[candle_86]

I never have a charge issue lol, I keep my forces boxed and deep, more muskets firing at once, not spread out, and im one of those guys that in the campgin takes awhile to get going because I build my armies 20 strong before I go out to play, but let me assure you when the enemy charges my line they usally route.

As for ME2 v RTW id go for Rome honestly, ME2 has some bugs that they never fixed. Such as 2h weapon users never actully hit, its to do with there speed, and that fact it resests everytime there struck, so a 1h infantry can tear apart 2h heavier infantry. Also horses when they charge, some unexplanabily stop and do not charge, but trot, so you dont get a full charge. They never fixed these issues but rome doesnt have them.

[FPF-DieHard]

This game sucked, I lost interest after a few hours.  M2TW was so much cooler, the era of combat was just more interesting with the variety of weapons and tactics.

[Father Ted]

I made the command decision, I let the clerk pick for me.

He said ME2, so I went with it, and though I have very little clue what I'm doing, I'm managing to make more money than I'm spending. Rome was very tempting though, and if I figure this one out, they're next.

[Dracho]

The only irritating thing to me in M2TW (and Rome, for that matter) is that you recruit different units in a city and in a fortress.  The basic line infantry will have the same stats, but you cannot replinish a city unit in a fortress nor a fortress unit in a city.

It seems like an unnecessary distraction and I am not sure what the purpose was, as the units will generally have the same stats & weapons.

I think Empire Total War made the strategic game much better..  I love the ability to have an army "call for reinforcements" when damaged, and in a couple of turns the units are back to strength.   Also, if it has a general present the army can recruit and the units will be created at the nearest possible base and march to the army.  M2TW and RTW would be much better campaign games if that was the case, but they are still fun at the tactical level.

Maybe that's it.. Empire is a better strategic game but the other 2 are more fun tactical games.

[candle_86]

actully in rome, all units are recruited from your city there is no castle/city disteinction. Its based on your barracks type. Its 1000 years earlier than ME2 and the system was diffrent, cities as a general rule doubled as fortifcations agasint attack

[Commander La'ra]

I'm a huge fan of E:TW.  I greatly enjoyed all the other Total War games, save ME2 which I never played, and Empire was honestly the one I was waiting on since I played Shogun.  Sword and lance warfare is interesting to me, but I far prefer gunpowder and cannons...and though their naval fights need some work, I loved that they were finally, you know, there.

Howitzers are my friend, btw.