Empire: Total War announced...

[Prime Junta]

...featuring the 18th century, muskets, redcoats, field artillery, and real-time 3D naval battles. See Eurogamer for more. With any luck, what with the more recent and less romantic epoch, this will have better fleshed out and less unbalanced and unrealistic units than Medieval II with its camel gunners...

Move over, Napoleon. I can't wait. :-)

[mactbone]

Did they ever get around to fixing MTW2? I know the fans have been trying to get the shield situation worked out - along with a few other combat tweaks that really screw up what should be intuitive but I lost patience and haven't checked in a while.

Heh, I wonder how slow those naval battles will be. I've always been more interested in the strategic aspect of their games though even if they aren't quite as complex as Paradox's efforts.

[Prime Junta]

They've fixed a lot of things, some of which actually make a lot of difference to the gameplay. Cavalry charges work better, about-face works like it does in real life, lots of units have been rebalanced (including those camel gunners), and so on. It never was really broken to start with, and it only got better; however, if you're a stickler for realism and detail, it's a bit lacking in some ways. Off the top of my head: lobbing half-cows with trebuchets, horse archer AI/tactics, many Eastern/Southern units are not historically correct and/or very sketchily implemented or poorly balanced, and so on. I probably wouldn't even notice, except that the Total Realism mod for R:TW was on a whole different level in this respect.

[mactbone]

It never was really broken to start with

Shield units were worse than their non-shielded counterparts with the same stats. It was tested and verified. I don't know if anyone ever figured out the exact reason, but it was definitely there.

The problems weren't just an issue of tweaking balance - there was more than one instance of the text indicating one thing should happen and the opposite or nothing happened.

I think they've done a pretty good job at patching and working but there were parts that were broken.

I wonder how much they're going to rework the diplomacy system - the princesses and diplomats system was horrible IMO. If I'm thinking right then this time period lends itself to alliances and alliance wars. Wonder if they'll keep the same dicatator control of building or if they'll try to abstract it with the shift of power from monarchies to parliamentary systems and free enterprises.

[Zaleukos]

I'd suspect a new sea battle system, and the same crappy strategic AI and ahistorical all against all conquer the world campaign as in earlier total war. The strategic AI has suffered from the same limitations throughout the series. It seems like CA wont learn that it doesnt add difficulty to have weak neighbours attack you with low level units turn after turn...

It's still an enjoyable and light hearted game though, but one has to remember that the tactical battles are the heart of the game, and the campaign sort of an afterthought....

[VPeric]

Hey, it can't be worse than Imperial Glory, can it now?

(TBH, I enjoyed IG for a time too, but some of the game mechanics were simply bad ideas)

[Prime Junta]

I'd suspect a new sea battle system, and the same crappy strategic AI and ahistorical all against all conquer the world campaign as in earlier total war. The strategic AI has suffered from the same limitations throughout the series. It seems like CA wont learn that it doesnt add difficulty to have weak neighbours attack you with low level units turn after turn...

Ain't that the truth. The strategic AI does need a major overhaul. Some things I'd like to see changed:

(1) Intelligent alliance-building. Have countries band up against each other, instead of just changing, proposing, and breaking alliances pretty much completely at random. In my last game as the HRE I had exactly three contacts with Byzantium -- once they made a naval landing and attacked Bologna, then they sent a diplomat to propose trade rights, and then another one to propose an alliance. I had no common borders with them, and only one common enemy. Hello?

(2) Intelligent decisions on war and peace. As you say, it makes no sense for an enemy reduced to one or two cities to keep sending poor stacks against a neighboring empire; they should sue for peace, then try to build an alliance big enough to take on the bigger enemy. Similarly, it makes no sense for the AI not to accept a ceasefire and trade rights if there's no invasion imminent.

(3) Simple decisions on strategic posture. Hell, just have three different types of postures: take and hold, raid and pillage, defend. For take and hold, build up a strong stack or three, send them to take a limited number of neighboring settlements, then sue for peace. For raid and pillage, send the stacks on deep raids of enemy territory, sacking and then abandoning every city they take. For defense, keep them on home territory but aggressively attack anyone crossing the border. Shouldn't be too hard.

It's still an enjoyable and light hearted game though, but one has to remember that the tactical battles are the heart of the game, and the campaign sort of an afterthought....

That it is. I think of the campaign as a reasonably interesting excuse for the battles. :-)

[Prime Junta]

Shield units were worse than their non-shielded counterparts with the same stats. It was tested and verified. I don't know if anyone ever figured out the exact reason, but it was definitely there.

Oh, there were a whole bunch of details like that that were broken; I meant the game overall. It was enjoyable and "felt right" from the first release version, even if there were some bugs.

[Zaleukos]

PJ: If you havent looked at the xml files for the AI (part of it can be edited) then do so, its interesting. It seems like the AI does have different postures (called deep defense and whatnot), but there are some rather fundamental flaws that cant be modded. First one would wonder why the AI wont garrison its settlements at all, and second it bases its decision mainly on relative frontline strength, meaning that if you have a short border (say Denmark has Hamburg as its only border against a surrounding Germany) the AI is more likely to think that it can attack you as you are likely to have a smaller garrison. This means that one in my experience can make the AI more interested in peace by a) shortening the AIs border against you, b) build a few forts if you have a short border and fill them up with extra defenders.

The second reason for the stupid wars would be random missions that the AI gets, that's apparently why one get occasional blockades and whatnot.

What I would like to see would be an AI that plans for invasion, builds up an adequate field army and garrisons its border, and THEN attack. But the AI is unable to build proper armies. The only problematic enemies are the Italians (with their relatively strong low level units) and the Mongols/Timurids who are scripted to appear with ultra strong armies...

Unfortunately (though probably necessarily as they need the money) CA focus on eye candy and the like first in order to appeal to the casual gamers. Under the hood mechanisms and flunky AIs take a while to discover and wont hurt sales that much, particularly as reviewers either are too superficial or dont play a game long enough to discover such faults...

[Prime Junta]

What I would like to see would be an AI that plans for invasion, builds up an adequate field army and garrisons its border, and THEN attack. But the AI is unable to build proper armies.

That's exactly what I had in mind, only slightly more elaborated with the two different invasion modes. Having a neighbor who likes to launch deep raids and devastate your cities would give a whole different feel to the game.

The only problematic enemies are the Italians (with their relatively strong low level units) and the Mongols/Timurids who are scripted to appear with ultra strong armies...

I'd even discount the Italians, since they're so vulnerable to cavalry (few spear units).

Unfortunately (though probably necessarily as they need the money) CA focus on eye candy and the like first in order to appeal to the casual gamers. Under the hood mechanisms and flunky AIs take a while to discover and wont hurt sales that much, particularly as reviewers either are too superficial or dont play a game long enough to discover such faults...

That's quite true, although I have a feeling that they genuinely like making this type of game -- and they have a pretty solid basis to build on. Also, AI and graphics programming are rather different skill sets, which means you can't just reassign people from one to the other. IOW, there is at least *hope* that they'll revamp the strategic AI at the same time as tweaking the graphics. :)

[Zaleukos]

True. AI is much more difficult to code, while visuals and sound essentially amount to craftsmanship. But to me that speaks even more against AI development once you have something that isnt outright broken, as the eye candy has a much more reliable return/investment ratio...

And I dont doubt that CA would like to code a better AI, but it's not obvious how to do it and they need sales to feed themselves. And to me it seems like the strategic AI has been more or less the same since MTW1, so they probably consider it adequate when coupled with modding... To me it isnt really, something like the border strength calculation is a leftover from the risk style map of previous installments, instead I'd like to make the AI consider how many days away potential reinforcements are, rather than in which provinces they are.

About that deep raid idea it would be a nice touch for the AI ruler attributes to affect the playing style, like in Master of Orion (2?). That would make the game a bit more unpredictable and also be something that sounds good while marketing the game:)

[Prime Junta]

True. AI is much more difficult to code, while visuals and sound essentially amount to craftsmanship. But to me that speaks even more against AI development once you have something that isnt outright broken, as the eye candy has a much more reliable return/investment ratio...

However, you still need the AI programmers, if only to maintain the code. Moreover, for a company like CA, AI is one of their core competencies. IOW, I don't think they fired their AI guys once R:TW was out.

About that deep raid idea it would be a nice touch for the AI ruler attributes to affect the playing style, like in Master of Orion (2?). That would make the game a bit more unpredictable and also be something that sounds good while marketing the game:)

Yup, and it would be historically correct too. I was pretty disappointed by the way the Mongol and Timurid invasions unrolled in M2TW. Having an intelligent raid AI would totally change the experience. I beat Carthage in my first R:TR campaign with this strategy (they're a lot tougher in TR than TW): I sent two big stacks with top generals into North Africa and devastated their cities; this bankrupted them and stopped production of their top units. It would be very interesting and pretty challenging to defend against that kind of attack, and I don't think the AI would be too difficult to program.

[Zaleukos]

However, you still need the AI programmers, if only to maintain the code. Moreover, for a company like CA, AI is one of their core competencies. IOW, I don't think they fired their AI guys once R:TW was out.

Thats not what I meant.:) I just suspect they stick with the same basic algorithmic framework and extend it to cater for additions, rather than coming up with a totally new system, making the AI a patchwork more than anything else.

Setting up different packages for different personalities should be doable within the current framework though...

[Zaleukos]

Speaking of the AI this little snippet from www.totalwar.org says something about the history of the series:


- The AI system will be reworked and improved. An example given is that the AI will be unified, meaning that no longer the military AI will try to conquer a territory, while the diplomatic AI is working towards an alliance with the owner of said territory.

That would explain a lot if true:p

[Prime Junta]

That would explain a lot if true:p

Come to think of it, it doesn't seem to be that different from the way many real countries operate...

[souha13]

Looking forward to this one. My favorite period in history which unfortunatedly is repeatedly dismissed for WW2, Ancient or medieval times.

[danutz_plusplus]

The demo for Empire Total War was released on Steam. Go get it (http://store.steampowered.com/app/10620). It's pretty nice. :)

[Prime Junta]

Shan't. This is a (relatively rare) must-buy already; getting into a demo would just make the wait worse. Besides, there's always Civilization...

[Zaleukos]

Unless I get reports of radically improved campaign AI (extremely doubtful given CAs track record) I'll wait for this one to drop in price:p

EDIT: I also get discouraging reports of performance in the demo, so I might have to wait until I can upgrade my PC anyway...

[Prime Junta]

Unless I get reports of radically improved campaign AI (extremely doubtful given CAs track record) I'll wait for this one to drop in price:p

They did say they rewrote it, based on a unified and goal-based model, instead of a divided and state-based one. So it ought to be different at least.

[Zaleukos]

I realise I have the compulsion to turn every post I make about the TW series into a rant over the AI:D

At one level I think that from a players point of view one can dismiss the inner workings of the AI and treat it as a black box. A simpler model can produce as believable results as a more complex one (in the RPG world I think of Gothic with it's simple schedules vs the more dynamic Oblivion AI) and it's that output that matters. Getting that right is among the toughest challenges in the genres that I play (TBS and RPGs) and the difficulty of the task makes me fairly forgiving, but I at least expect to see some improvements from developers between titles:) Ultimately I guess one would want an AI that passes the Turing test, but that is pretty darn difficult for a game as multidimensional as TW...

Then I'm simply a bit jaded when it comes to (any) developers' claims regarding AI. In the TW case the AI behaviour has been fairly constant in all the games I've played, which is from Medieval 1 onwards. I also dont think the problem merely lied in the underlying model (even if it was flawed in the "divided" sense), but also in CA:s idea that challenging the player means constantly throwing hordes of whatever the AI has (if only peasants) at him, and at least in Medieval 2 the problems were made worse by horrible tuning. Changing the AI framework will not necessairly resolve all the issues.

That said I'll of course be very happy if the new model turns out to be an improvement in practice.:) Two weeks to a month of dedicated players dissecting the game should be enough to know if the game is less suicidal.

[Prime Junta]

Oh, I agree -- it'd be a whole new experience if TW had campaign AI on par with Civ IV, for example. But then Civ IV doesn't have those beautiful real-time battles, culture-specific and highly intricate tech trees, or families that have members with personality that develops over the years. The crummy campaign AI never stopped me from enjoying any Total War, any more than having a stealth bomber intercepted and shot down by a prop fighter is stopping me from enjoying Civ.

[zakhal]

Turn-based alternative to Total War called "Crown of Glory: Emperors edition" is going into release today. It has turn-based HoI style map where you move diplomats, armies, navies, handle economy,etc and turn based Fantasy General style land and naval combat.

Screenshots:
http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/366/20090204111412.jpg?width=800&height=600
http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/366/20090204111436.jpg?width=800&height=600
http://www.matrixgames.com/files/games/366/20090204111342.jpg?width=800&height=600

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/366/details/Crown.of.Glory:.Emperor%E2%80%99s.Edition

The new Emperor’s Edition is a sequel to the acclaimed Crown of Glory and improves on the original in every area, immersing the player in the epic events of the Napoleonic era. A beautiful strategic map with more than 200 provinces covers all of Europe and North Africa, with scenarios and campaigns from 1792 up to 1820. Players take the role of one of the crowned potentates of any of the eight Major powers as well as having the option to play as a minor power such as Poland or Portugal.

* Emperor's Edition Improvements:
* New strategic map including a network of roads connecting provinces
* 70 new movement areas on the strategic map
* New “Simple Economy” mode for players who want to concentrate on military / diplomacy
* 6 new minor powers
* 101 new historical events such as “Reign of Terror,” “Janissary Revolt,” and “Assassination of Paul I”
* Map zooms in and out smoothly on strategic and detailed combat levels
* Nations gain Experience and Naval Experience and use these to purchase national upgrades, advanced units, and special training for units
* Improved orders of battle in all scenarios with historical names for hundreds of divisions and ships
* New scenarios for 1803 and 1812
* New scenarios that allow Portugal, Bavaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Poland to be player-controlled
* Changes to strategic A.I. to create more historical decisions for certain nations
* New “Path of Napoleon” victory condition in which player must try to accomplish all of Napoleon’s goals
* New rules for inflation and mobilization limits to better model wartime effects on the economy and to limit army sizes to historical levels
* New rules for march attrition
* New interface screens for strategic overview, unit and province lists
* Ability to fight detailed battles at division or brigade level
* New system of in-game help
* New music and sound effects

* Improvements to Detailed Land Battles:
* Cavalry units can deploy cavalry screens in detailed battle
* Units can set a reaction radius in detailed battle that allows units to fire at enemy units, to move to intercept them, or to change rotation to face moving enemy units
* New system for handling threat zones and formation changes
* New “Pursuit Phase” at end of combat
* Completely new A.I. for detailed battle
* Can now give long-range movement orders to units and to entire military groups

* New Detailed Naval Battles at the Ship Level!
* Wind speed and direction affects movement and combat
* Ships have five different sail states
* Damage to hull, guns, carronades, rigging, crew, leaders
* Fire round shot, chain shot, or canister shot
* 20 different critical hit types to ships, such as “fire” and “rudder shot away”
* Grappling and boarding


Im going to propably buy both this and the new total war. Allthough Im sceptical if the TW AI can offer any challenge at all. In the last game of the series I conquered the whole europe on first game with minor nation without loosing a single battle. And I used the mod "AI improvements" even.

[Prime Junta]

Try installing Rome: Total Realism and playing as the Gauls or the Scythians. Not easy. (Not because of the AI, but because your starting position is tough.)

[zakhal]

Try installing Rome: Total Realism and playing as the Gauls or the Scythians. Not easy. (Not because of the AI, but because your starting position is tough.)
Ive played with many mods of Rome including total realism. The only problem I had with them is that they always crashed sooner or later. They did have pretty challenging difficulty though especially with the minor nations. The gauls were not that hard though iirc, I crushed roman armies from the start.

Yesterday I got the shogun gold to work. Apparently my new graphics card or new drivers finally fixed the mouse issues I had with the earlier total war games. I tried two years to make the game work with my 8800GTS without any success but now my new gtx 280 runs it smooth as silk.

I might just replay the whole series from total war eras to mediaval2 while waiting these new games. The earlier games were truly hard. I dont think I ever won a single game even.

[Prime Junta]

Ive played with many mods of Rome including total realism. The only problem I had with them is that they always crashed sooner or later. They did have pretty challenging difficulty though especially with the minor nations. The gauls were not that hard though iirc, I crushed roman armies from the start.

Really? Which version? From 6.0 up RTR never crashed on me once. You are playing at the hardest difficulty, right?

[zakhal]

Really? Which version? From 6.0 up RTR never crashed on me once. You are playing at the hardest difficulty, right?

Combat was hardest but economy was normal or hard. Simply giving more money to AI to make it challenging feels like a cheat. Also the continious revolts were too annoying.

[Prime Junta]

Combat was hardest but economy was normal or hard. Simply giving more money to AI to make it challenging feels like a cheat. Also the continious revolts were too annoying.

I don't think the hardest level gave more money to the AI; I think it just didn't give it *less* money like at the easier difficulties. It's also a good deal less aggressive, which means that it won't throw itself into stupid wars -- but also that you can't afford to completely ignore weaker enemies, which makes fighting the bigger and richer ones more challenging.

It totally changes the nature of the game if you're playing as the Gauls, for example -- since your cities are dispersed all over the map, you're going to lose many of them quite soon simply because your bigger neighbors will assault them all at once. (Which is, incidentally, pretty much what happened to the Gauls in reality too.) That means that your only winning strategy, even against the dumb AI, is to decide which region you're going to keep, tax the rest for everything it's worth until you lose it, and try to consolidate and expand that base. In effect, you're starting with only one or two cities that are worth a damn, and those in difficult neighborhoods -- either resource-poor and with long distances (Gaul) or surrounded by aggressive neighbors (Asia Minor).

IOW, you've been playing against a dumb AI that's also been handicapped. No wonder you've had it too easy. I always play at the hardest difficulty, and I certainly don't get the impression that the AI has access to any more resources than I do. I strongly recommend that you do so too -- it's a whole different experience. (And until you do, I won't be taking any more whining about the AI. ;) )

The bottom line about the campaign AI as I've experienced it is that it's highly predictable and largely "random" -- if it sees land it can grab, it grabs it, whether it makes any sense or not; it never launches serious naval assaults; it never attempts to build alliances that make any sense, and it breaks alliances also when it makes no sense; it's absolutely no good at defending relatively unprotected heartlands, seizing strategic choke points, or what not. As in, if you're playing as the Romans, you can just fortify the Alpine passes and watch as wave after wave of Germans and Gauls breaks on your legions, but it'll never try to do the same.

But: it's aggressive, as in you can't afford to ignore your neighbors; it fights between itself, as in you can take advantage of these "secondary" wars; and, if it gets into a lucky position, it's expansive, which means that it can get onto an exponential growth curve before you do, and if that happens, you're in for a real challenge, dumb or not. At the lower difficulties, it's much, much more passive -- it basically expands until it hits its neighbors and then sits there to wait for you to conquer it, which is not much fun at all.

[zakhal]

I don't think the hardest level gave more money to the AI; I think it just didn't give it *less* money like at the easier difficulties. It's also a good deal less aggressive, which means that it won't throw itself into stupid wars -- but also that you can't afford to completely ignore weaker enemies, which makes fighting the bigger and richer ones more challenging.


From RTR forums:
On VH campaign AI factions get +10000 denarii a turn. On H campaign I guess there is a similar money boost somewhat less, probably half.

On H and VH combat the AI troops get +4 and +7 attack and moral boost repectively.

Autoresolving is determined by campaign difficulty.

Best settings depend on faction; personally I never play anything less than H campaign and as the Romans battles are on VH (because Romans are so uber in the game anyway). With quite hopeless factions like Pontus and Numidia I say N battles unless you feel especially masochistic.

Hope this helps.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113675

So if I played on VH combat and H campaign AI got full bonuses in combat and more money. I did try the VH campaign too but I found that the AI simply had too much money. Its too much of a cheat.

[Prime Junta]

OK, I stand corrected. Perhaps the extra money is what's driving their extra aggression, too.

But in any case, it's a whole different game, and a much better one for it, no matter how it's done. I've won on VH/VH multiple times and with multiple factions, and I felt like I had to work for it.

[Prime Junta]

By the way, I just found out that the difficulty levels in Civ IV work the same way: Noble is the "fair" one, with either you or the AI receiving bonuses at higher or lower levels. No wonder Prince is so punishingly hard.

Strangely, I *have* gotten the feeling of unfairness in Civ IV at Prince that I never got in TW at the highest campaign difficulty level. Perhaps it's because Civ's AI isn't rock-stupid like TW's. I'd say that TW at the hardest level "feels" about as hard as Civ IV at Noble.

[VPeric]

Try installing Rome: Total Realism and playing as the Gauls or the Scythians. Not easy. (Not because of the AI, but because your starting position is tough.)

Let me also recommend Europa Barbarorum (wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum)). Definitely challenging and interesting, and even has a much more logical recruitment system. Admitedly, I haven't played RTR at all, but I got the impression it was just the original done better, while EB is different (also, better :P).

[Zaleukos]

OK, I stand corrected. Perhaps the extra money is what's driving their extra aggression, too.

This is most likely the case. One reason for crummy campaign performance in M2 and Rome was that the AI always ran out of money because it recruited as much as it could on a per turn basis, rather than teching up first and aiming for balanced stacks. This is also one reason that M2 saw a simplified (more linear) tech tree and recruitment that didnt draw from the population.


But in any case, it's a whole different game, and a much better one for it, no matter how it's done. I've won on VH/VH multiple times and with multiple factions, and I felt like I had to work for it.

Sort of agree. We wont be able to build an AI that can outsmart humans anytime soon (unless the game can be reduced to a search tree like chess or reversi), so games have to cheat to be challenging. The trick is to make the cheating believable (again I think the Turing test is a good guideline) and not too transparent:p

Let me also recommend Europa Barbarorum (wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_Barbarorum)). Definitely challenging and interesting, and even has a much more logical recruitment system. Admitedly, I haven't played RTR at all, but I got the impression it was just the original done better, while EB is different (also, better :P).

Europa Barbarorum has a location based recruitment system that appeals to me. I find it weird to be able to recruit Macedonian companion cavalry in Belgium. A culture system like in the Britannia campaign of the M2:Kingdoms expansion would be a better base for recruitment of non-generic units, but culture should change much more slowly than in that expansion...

I've also found that the best way to get interesting battles in Medieval 2 was to more or less mod away the tech tree. Creating a very crude renaissance mod (simply making the tech tree start with city level units and feudal knights) was the only way to get the AI to field interesting stacks. I had the HRE attack Rheims with a force of Handgunners and Imperial Knights supported by pike militia:) Without such alterations one wont get to field the cooler units against their historical opposition...

[Remus]

Empire: Total War just released. Received 9.5 rating at IGN PC (http://pc.ign.com/articles/957/957883p3.html) and 9 on Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/empire-total-war-review).

What's your impression and comment guys?

[Prime Junta]

Haven't played it... yet. All in good time...

[zakhal]

Sort of agree. We wont be able to build an AI that can outsmart humans anytime soon (unless the game can be reduced to a search tree like chess or reversi), so games have to cheat to be challenging. The trick is to make the cheating believable (again I think the Turing test is a good guideline) and not too transparent:p


It doesnt help that they have made the game more complicated for AI. The new overland map in RTW might have been more fun for human player but its way harder to create an AI that can handle it.

I totally agree with making cheating believable. As long as I dont know its cheating (or its not outrageously obvious) then it doesnt matter if it does.

Play.com mailed my game today. Special forces edition with the uss preorder ship ~45€. Have to wait for next week.

Empire: Total War just released. Received 9.5 rating at IGN PC (http://pc.ign.com/articles/957/957883p3.html) and 9 on Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/empire-total-war-review).

What's your impression and comment guys?
Sounds like a paid review. Many players have given negative feedback about the demo. Ill wage that after week or two of play the game feels just like yet another total war game worth of 70-80% score.

[Zaleukos]

It doesnt help that they have made the game more complicated for AI. The new overland map in RTW might have been more fun for human player but its way harder to create an AI that can handle it.

Yep. I dont think they changed the AI much at all between Medieval 1 and Rome, but what worked (reasonably well) for a risk-type map didnt work on a full overland map. That it continued to count proximitiy in terms of provinces rather than in actual distance is IMHO one sign of this. CA never got around to fixing the problem of the AI leaving armies out in the wild (a problem that didnt exist for the risk type map of Medieval 1). The diplomatic lunacy was roughly the same, but with the risk map the AI at least could get it's forces to the action zones quickly. Interestingly enough many of the AI mods for Medieval 2 (and the Kingdoms expansion) tackle this by increasing movement points on the overland map.

[txa1265]

Just an FYI - GoGamer has it this weekend at $35.90 (http://www.gogamer.com/Empire--Total-War--I--for-PC-All-PC-Games_stcVVproductId64920046VVcatId444774VVviewpro d.htm)

I thought I saw it for $50, not $40 ... not as good of a bargain as I thought ...

[Remus]

me ordered the Special Forces collector's edition; hopefully tomorrow it would arrives...

How is the installation goes... Some peoples have problem with it since you need Steam; but once activated you could play it offline.

Is really the game need to be on the same drive/partition which you have the Steam installed on?

[Bladeheart]

Could anyone who has the game and played it, please confirm whether you have to be online in order to play TW:Empire regardless of mode?

Dawn of War 2 stated on the box cover that you need internet connection to activate that game, as does TW:E. However, I have discovered that you also have to be online in order to play DOW2 in any mode, including single player!

As a point of interest I too have all the other TW games and previously have pre-ordered the latter versions; this latest development has caused me to reconsider.
I find myself wondering how long it will be before I am being charged to play games online? ;)

[txa1265]

I have played DoWII in single player mode with no internet access - I just used Steam in Offline mode.

[JDR13]

Empire: Total War just released. Received 9.5 rating at IGN PC (http://pc.ign.com/articles/957/957883p3.html) and 9 on Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/empire-total-war-review).

What's your impression and comment guys?


It probably sucks then.... ;)


Seriously though, IGN is notorious for handing out 9\10+ ratings like Halloween candy. I'm sure they probably gave Oblivion a 10/10.


*Edit* Just checked- they gave Oblivion a 9.3 and FO3 a 9.6 :rolleyes:

[Surlent]

Metacritic's review (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/empiretotalwar) collection has lots of positive reviews of the game too.

Anyone still playing this one?

[txa1265]

Actually the GoGamer deal is good - it is on Steam for $50. Might grab it.

[Bladeheart]

I have played DoWII in single player mode with no internet access - I just used Steam in Offline mode.

Forgive me, but could you please detail how one does that?
Please PM me if such a reply would be a hijack of the thread. :)

Thanks

[Zaleukos]

The game has been out for long enough for the novelty value to wear off. Provided you buy hearsay the reports I get are sadly roughly as bad as I fear wrt the campaign AI:

- Naval invasions seem to be absent, as is naval transport.
- All artillery stacks are common among some factions (notably the Mughals)
- The AI splits its navies into multiple small stacks that are easy to handle piecemeal.
- The AI sends small stacks into enemy territory rather than larger stacks (fine for raiding and economic warfare, but not so good for full blown invasions).
- The AI wont garrison it's capitals or go for enemy capitals.
- Some minors are awfully belligerent and attack major neighbours they cant possibly beat.

On the plus side diplomacy and alliances seem fairly robust, but flawed patterns in that area takes longer to discover, so I'm not counting on this to hold.

[Remus]

Just started the game, finished the land and sea combat tutorial missions. Now in Road to Independence campaign. the control feels pretty similar to previous Total War games and the game overall very enjoyable.

The installation kinda slow and slightly a hassle through the steam service.

I received the european special force version; came with extra map and artbook but no History Channel Revolution DVD. Maybe it's in another different edition? How many editions it is there?

[wynams]

I just tried the demo out (trying to talk myself in to buying it while gogamer has for $36). edit: gogamer sale over now

I've never been a huge fan of the previous Total War games and I didn't really see anything spectacular (the game is currently having much praise HEAPED onto it). I did the land tutorial, meh. Tried to do the naval tutorial, but the game kept going to NOT RESPONDING on load ... uninstalled, $36 game funds remain intact.

[Cabel Blacke]

The game has been out for long enough for the novelty value to wear off. Provided you buy hearsay the reports I get are sadly roughly as bad as I fear wrt the campaign AI:

- Naval invasions seem to be absent, as is naval transport.
- All artillery stacks are common among some factions (notably the Mughals)
- The AI splits its navies into multiple small stacks that are easy to handle piecemeal.
- The AI sends small stacks into enemy territory rather than larger stacks (fine for raiding and economic warfare, but not so good for full blown invasions).
- The AI wont garrison it's capitals or go for enemy capitals.
- Some minors are awfully belligerent and attack major neighbours they cant possibly beat.

On the plus side diplomacy and alliances seem fairly robust, but flawed patterns in that area takes longer to discover, so I'm not counting on this to hold.

I'm just finishing up my first foray as the Russians in the Grand Campaign and I can speak to your bullet items above.

Naval invasions indeed do not happen in the current version. To be honest, I think they removed that for balancing, as it would be very difficult to play many of the chosen factions if naval invasions were in. For example, most Euro-centric nations have enemies on all sides from very early in the campaign. Adding naval invasions would simply increase the enemy invasion routes exponentially. Do I agree with this on a historical/realism basis? No. But I can appreciate how play testing would've caused them to remove that feature, if in fact it was ever in there to begin with.

For artillery stacks being the same, I haven't played the Mughals but this wasn't the case with the Russians, as I distinctly remember having different forms of artillery in my army at a time.

The Navy AI does seem to favor lower-level naval ships over waiting on the upper-class ship-of-the-line ships, as I did. Hence I was able to easily decimate a large force of AI ships with only a couple mid-level frigates, as they simply couldn't stand up against my broadsides.

The AI does still send in small stacks in an attempt to wear down opponents economically, as it did with previous TW games.

I'm not sure I agree with the lack of garrisons in the enemy capital. I just attacked Warsaw and went up against a formidable garrison, complete with sandbags and other on-field fortifications. I won, but it was a bloody affair.

The minors can be easily placated by simply giving them technology. I think they made the minors active to force you into more diplomacy.

Overall, all of your points are valid. There are problems with the game. In fact, the battlefield AI is borderline stupid at times, especially when being harassed from afar by horse archers. However, even with all of those things (and several more) taken into account, I've experienced more sheer pleasure with this game than any of the previous outings. Some of the land battles have simply been "epic." In fact, I've experienced some battles in which the AI actually did the magical thing of being creative. For example, I nearly lost a battle when I lost track of a group of hidden enemy cavalry who circled round to my flanks while the battle was raging and wiped out my artillerymen. I've never experienced such creative flourishes from the AI in past TW games.

The campaign AI and gameplay is pretty much the same as before with diplomacy taking on a more central role. Blocking of trade lanes is far more important this go around as is the necessity to break through these trade barriers to keep from going bankrupt.

So, if you hated the AI in previous TW games, it is better but only slightly. However, if you can look past that and enjoy the game for what it is, there's a lot here to like.

[Remus]

I hate it when saving a game, the game didn't save last map position i'm looking at. So when i continue the campaign later on i have to remember and check where i left off previously.

The game surely a major time sucker; last night i planned for 1 hour session before jumping on online Left 4 Dead's session but because of "just few more rounds..." reasoning i end up spending 4 hours.

[Zaleukos]

It does seem like the userbase has reach some sort of consensus by now. The battles are fine, the interface improved (I hated the micromanagement of agents in earlier TW games), but campaign AI is not good and there seem to be some stability issues.


So, if you hated the AI in previous TW games, it is better but only slightly. However, if you can look past that and enjoy the game for what it is, there's a lot here to like.

First thanks for your input, any input is interesting. I get conflicting reports on the belligerency of minors. Could there be some sort of global reputation meter similar to that in Medieval 2 (where this had ridiculous impact) that influences diplomacy?

I do hate the campaign AI in the previous games, but I still managed to sink enough enjoyable hours into them for me not to regret the purchases. I'll probably end up the same way with Empire, but this time I'll wait for the price to go down first:) The games that I play (Gothic and Europa Universalis are prime examples) tend to have release versions plagued with issues, and I've finally decided to put the foot down and try to not buy games on release from developers with a shady past:p

[V7]

First thanks for your input, any input is interesting. I get conflicting reports on the belligerency of minors. Could there be some sort of global reputation meter similar to that in Medieval 2 (where this had ridiculous impact) that influences diplomacy?


The diplomacy section reminds me a lot of the Europa Universallis games, mouse over a country on the diplomatic screen and it'll give you a series of +/- for your relationship including things like historical greviances and 'expansion' all with numbers so you can see the exact effect - haven't quite worked out how (if?) it effects their propensity to war but it looks straight forward.

I've had a play with the campaign now and I like a lot of the changes to the strategic level. Managing a govrnment, trade and empire all feel more interesting that the previous build and move armies dynmanic. Battle AI is a (very) little better than previous gamesand the battles get a bit more interesting once you get new fire drills and tatics.

Overall its grown on me, however I've now had two campaigns stoped by crashes so its going back on the shelf till they release a few more patches - I'll be interested to see what the modders do with it too when they've had a chance.

[Zaleukos]

Sounds good, the diplomatic engine (not so much the diplomatic AI) is one of the outstanding features of the Paradox games. The best feature of their system is that ownership of a province only is transferred when peace is made, but I guess CA didnt copy that particular feature?

[Cabel Blacke]

I've now had two campaigns stoped by crashes so its going back on the shelf till they release a few more patches - I'll be interested to see what the modders do with it too when they've had a chance.

Yep, this is definitely the primary reason to wait for a patch and perhaps a price-drop. The engine is fragile, with memory leaks, etc. and needs patching. I've also had two campaigns stopped from crashing and I have a very clean, capable, and generic system that is up-to-date on drivers, etc. and has little problem playing any other current games. Anyone who says the game is stable, is either lying (and works for CA and/or has an agenda to defend them--such as a forum moderator) or extremely lucky.

However, once tweaked/repaired this game will easily be one of the best turn-based strategy games I've ever played. The sheer scope of gameplay is vast and highly entertaining.

[V7]

Sounds good, the diplomatic engine (not so much the diplomatic AI) is one of the outstanding features of the Paradox games. The best feature of their system is that ownership of a province only is transferred when peace is made, but I guess CA didnt copy that particular feature?

You still take the province when you capture the capital but armies have a zone of control that gives the opportunity to attack when an enemy crosses it (which prevents running in and laying seige in one move if they have an army ready) and the citty gets a mass of armed citizens (who are fairly weak but do provide enough of a force to require an army to defeat rather than a unit or two). Combined conquest felt (to me at least) like it required a bit more planning and effort. You can also build forts in strategic points to control movement - I didn't see much of this in the campaign but I suspect its something that could really slow down expansion if the AI was a little smarter - again looking forward to see what mods come out.

Oh, and I absolutly love being able to replenish unit strength in the field rather than having to cycle units back and forth all the time. But I'm disapointed that experience doesnt have an obvious effect on reload speed.

And as an aside I would have loved to see a more detailed officer system on the battle field - giving each unit a couple of officers and NCO's and reducing unit moral and effectivness as they get killed - an element that really comes out when you read about battles of the era. Not that I really expected it, but it wuuld have been nice.

[Zaleukos]

How goes the patching process?