By Kieron Gillen on February 27th, 2009 at 9:10 am.
My review of Empire: Total War has just gone live over at Eurogamer. I have to run to catch a train, so a quick link is all you’re getting for now. Expect RPS’ Wot I Think from Mr Stone early next week
« No Ray Is Safe Tonight: Raycatcher | League Of Legends In-Game Clobberin’ »
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
27/02/2009 at 09:39 abigbat says:
“…it convinces me that there is glamour in shiny buttons and musket-shot”; I rather enjoyed that!
Excellent review. I must agree that while I have no interest what-so-ever in this period of military history, the allure of this game has me sorely tempted to give it a chance.
Bring on the trumpets.
27/02/2009 at 09:59 Rob Zacny says:
When you have a moment, I have a question about the battle maps. In the demo, the Battle of Brandywine map is very nicely detailed, with numerous hills, groves, and paths that made the battle very fluid and unpredictable for a Total War game. Do the maps in the campaign pack as much topographical detail, or are they more traditional Total War campaign maps (big hill with a forest across 1/3 of the map)?
Are the battles still the Total War titanic clash followed by a quick rout, or do they play a bit more like the demo battle, with skirmishing, advances, retreats, and finally decision?
27/02/2009 at 10:07 Plopsworth says:
I think it’s annoying how deliberately restrictive the timeline is. It’s just so blindingly obvious that they’re saving the Napoleonic Wars (with possible Franco-Prussian conflict) and the 30 years war for expansion-packs.
It’s like selling an album without the two best tracks on it.
27/02/2009 at 10:10 Sucram says:
“Empire’s Grand Campaign is the grandest”
Oo sounds grand.
27/02/2009 at 10:10 Ben Abraham says:
A good read.
27/02/2009 at 10:30 Andrew says:
“When life gives you cannons, make Cannonade.”
YES.
27/02/2009 at 10:40 MrDeVil_909 says:
Skipped Medieval 2, the Rome Gold edition was all I needed, but this sounds very cool.
I think I’ll wait for the first Gold package and the patches that come with it though.
27/02/2009 at 10:42 phil says:
Nice review, I especially like the Tolstoy comparision; War and Piece was indeed bugged to hell, the historical essays were almost game breakers, luckily translators never seem to stop trying to fix it.
Equally, if you need some contextual reading before Cliving though the sub-continent, White Mughals is just stunning.
27/02/2009 at 10:47 Kalain says:
Wasn’t really interested in getting this until I played the demo. Good review and you come to all the points I agree on.
27/02/2009 at 10:52 Orlando says:
From what i’ve heared it’s a good game… I can’t wait to put my hands on the full version :x
27/02/2009 at 10:56 thefanciestofpants says:
Can’t. Bloody. Wait.
27/02/2009 at 11:04 reiver says:
Kieron nice review and i’m glad to hear that you think the AI has improved.
I hope you can answer this question as reports have been very ambiguous so far. How do the reinforcements work? Is it like Rome and M2 where you can have multiple armies on the field at once or is it like the original Medieval where it was 20 of your units on the field at once and 1 unit out for every 1 that enters.
Cheers.
27/02/2009 at 11:15 Heliocentric says:
Okay, you sold it to me. Do want.
27/02/2009 at 11:18 Bobsy says:
Kieron. Kieron!
Hey, Kieron?
Why did you only give this 9/10? You are clearly not a reviewer and honestly? I think this must mean you’re very gay indeed. Like, super-gay.
(just trying to get into the spirit of the times)
27/02/2009 at 11:24 Theoban says:
Oh don’t make me want this, I don’t have time to play this as well as DoWII and finally finishing Bioshock. Please don’t make me buy it…please….ok I’m getting my wallet out….agh!
27/02/2009 at 11:45 l1ddl3monkey says:
I am looking forward to restoring the great British Empire to it’s rightful place as owner of all the worlds tea. At least in a virtual sense.
Are there any Zulus? Faaaahsands of ‘em? Stop throwin’ those blaaahdy spears at me etc etc
27/02/2009 at 12:01 TC says:
Glad CA reduced the amount of regions/cities, sieges IMO are Total Wars weakest aspect and the less of them and the more big battles the better.
I did not like the sea battles at first but have come to appreciate them more after learning how to use formations and the various other tactical gubbins in the demo battle. Besides they ship models are just fantastic.
27/02/2009 at 12:29 schurem says:
Do want, want NAO!
27/02/2009 at 13:26 ILR says:
A genuinely positive review for a Total War game is nice surprise after the lukewarm reception of the demo. I was waiting for the inevitable ‘praise praise praise… BUT ON THE OTHER HAND’ section all the way to the midpoint of the third page.
This will be an eventual purchase. Let’s see a couple more reviews first.
27/02/2009 at 13:29 JoeDuck says:
The game was bought on steam before Christmas. The new pc (bought it for this game) is ready, the os installed, the drivers updated, all the other steam stuff is already downloaded so the pipes are clean for the download. The mouse has new batteries and the day off work is already negotiated. I’ve also been accumulating wife points for sometime and now i’m ready to spend them fast.
Yes, I’m a fanboy of the TW series AND of the period.
SO when I read that it ONLY got a 9/10, I feel it is finally my duty as fanboy to do as so many have done before me:
OMG !!!! 9/10!!!! WHY SO LOW?
:-)
27/02/2009 at 14:28 Real Horrorshow says:
I’m kind of annoyed to learn that the 13 Colonies/U.S.A. aren’t playable in the grand campaign proper, and are just an unplayable British protectorate.
I think it would have been a much more interesting set-up to make the 13 Colonies playable at 1700, but a protectorate of GB. Then later on you can decide if you want to rebel or not, or when to do it. Then when certain conditions are met the faction morphs into the USA with specific units, uniforms, flags, etc. (Think Kalmar Union in Kingdoms). I simply assumed it was like this before because it seems like a no brainer. The true set-up seems pretty boring to me.
We got this brand new TW game set ~500 years into the future from Medieval, the New World, all of that…and I’m stuck with the same 10 or so stuffy old European powers, with only 1 Indian faction and the US playable in a mini campaign to spice things up? All I can say is descr_strat.txt here I come. I cant tell you how much I was looking forward to playing my mother country in a TW grand campaign. European TW fans take it for granted.
Kieron, maybe you can lift my spirits, can you explain in some detail exactly how large in scale the Road to Independence campaign is compared to at least the previous “single region” TW games? Is it like the Medieval 2/Rome GC’s or is it more like one of the Kingdoms mini campaigns?
27/02/2009 at 14:28 MacBeth says:
“My favourite historical error is that they’ve put Glasgow on the west coast of Scotland.”
Err… what? Am I missing meta-gags here?
27/02/2009 at 14:38 phuzz says:
“Empire will give you a new bad habit: naval gazing.”
Oh KG, that’s just terrible.
Not played a TW game properly since Shogun (which I enjoyed, but got quickly bored of Rome), but the graphics look particularly shiny so this may get a look in in a month or two (people have been mentioning the Gold pack, how long until that’s out, roughly?).
27/02/2009 at 14:41 Chandrose says:
I’m trying not to get too excited, when I get too excited I curse…. fuck yeah!
*Ahem* Excuse me, but I love the TW series, and this one doesn’t look like it’s going to disappoint.
27/02/2009 at 14:50 PaulMorel says:
Has anyone else played the game “Imperial Glory”? It was released in … 06 I think, and it is basically exactly like this game, as far as I can tell.
27/02/2009 at 14:56 MetalCircus says:
i’m somewhat new to Total War games; is this more or less accessible than previous games? Is the tutorial fluid enough to ease me into it gently (Yes, I know, i’m a big pussy)
27/02/2009 at 14:58 Taillefer says:
AI was my biggest concern, as it seemed to be steadily getting worse. But to see it share a sentence with “hugely improved” is very comforting. Huzzah!
27/02/2009 at 15:00 TC says:
To be honest lots of people myself included think making the 13 colonies a protectorate rather than simply GB territory is already quite a nod to the American audience. No reason to have them as a playable faction as you start with a blank slate in 1700 and the conditions that lead to the colonies seeking independance might not occur.
27/02/2009 at 15:26 Real Horrorshow says:
Gameplay > history. My suggestion would be much more interesting game-play wise than the way it is now. All I wish is that the 13 Colonies be playable since they’re already there, it wouldn’t hurt anything if all you’re going to do is play GB anyway. I don’t see how you can argue against the protectorate set up though, in favor of just making it “Britain in North America.” It will make you have to watch over your colonies to keep them in line. It would be a lot different (and wrong) if colonies were simply treated as territory conquered in a game. AFAIK New Spain and New France are protectorates too.
27/02/2009 at 15:32 FhnuZoag says:
PaulMorel:
Reading the wikipedia article, it sounds like the big difference is that IG doesn’t model morale, making it much more of a conventional numerical advantage based RTS than Total Wars’ flank, demoralise and crush approach.
27/02/2009 at 15:47 JoeDuck says:
@Paul Morel:
I played (and finished) Imperial Glory. From what I seem to recall it was way simpler than a TW game, both in the tactical game (AI and morale specially) as well as in the strategy levels (unit diversity, economy, diplomacy…).
Evidently we still cannot compare as ETW is not out, but
I hope they are not “basically exactly the same game” because I expect more from ETW.
Way more.
27/02/2009 at 16:05 Dain says:
If anyone tells you IG is the same as E:TW, fix them with a long stare, walk slowly around them and examine their ear to make sure there is no daylight coming in the other side.
I could make a long post about how even the N:TW2 mod for Rome was better than IG, but I feel it is unneeded.
27/02/2009 at 16:15 Okami says:
I cant tell you how much I was looking forward to playing my mother country in a TW grand campaign. Well you’ll just have to be content to play your mother country in almost every other game ever made.
27/02/2009 at 16:20 Tei says:
For a historical accurate depiction of the england colonies revolution, I hope the iluminaty war against aliens is well depicted.
27/02/2009 at 16:23 A-Scale says:
YAY! I’m REALLY excited about this title. I only played the most recent Total War game, but I really enjoyed the realistic combat, one shot kills, and tactics. I do believe I’ll be buying this one.
27/02/2009 at 16:28 theleif says:
Who cares about some grumpy British colonist far away, when you can get your revenge on Russia Poland and Denmark, and conquer the world with you unstoppable Caroleans?
27/02/2009 at 16:29 Real Horrorshow says:
Okami: Relax with the snarky attitude. You know, as long as ETW has been announced, every place on the internet I’ve been from YouTube, to various Total War forums, etc., and now even here, I’ve always gotten some kind of sarcastic comment from somebody for just simply saying something innocent along the lines of “It will be fun to play U.S. in a Total War game.”
Is there really something offensive to you and others that someone might want to play the U.S. in a TW game or isn’t sickened when they hear the words “United States”? Is it a Revolution thing, is that still touchy? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m seriously curious. It’s an established trend to where I can 100% expect to recieve some kind of smart ass comment whenever I place the initials US and TW in the same sentence. Show me a TW forum, I’ll make the post, and then I’ll show you the comment. It works every time.
Please tell me why.
27/02/2009 at 16:39 Kieron Gillen says:
Real Horrorshow: I admit, I presumed the 13 Colonies *were* playable in the Grand Campaign – I didn’t explicitly check, but they’re in the major nations column in the Diplomacy, which is where the others are.
(The USA’s campaign is about the length of the short Grand Campaign, so it’s not as if it’s being hugely short-changed.)
MacBeth: It’s actually ON the west coast.
Phuzz: Presumably the editor added it, as I didn’t write it. I’m fine with that though, as it’s a splendidly bad one.
The Cannonade gag is mine though.
TC: There’s actually a mission you get as the English. If you can conquer and hold three specific provinces, the 13 Colonies actually join you.
KG
27/02/2009 at 16:40 Ginger Yellow says:
Counting down the days…
27/02/2009 at 16:46 Lukasz says:
Hah theleif. In your dreams!
I prefer shogun over med and rome. better atmosphere, more interesting setting.
Empire on other hand has better setting, not dull and overused medieval or Empire Romanum but era of great majestic ships, colorful soldiers and great technological progress.
Already preorderd. 110 AUD :(
27/02/2009 at 16:48 Real Horrorshow says:
I was wondering more about how many territories there are. The end-date can be edited to be 2009 in about 2 minutes. Same thing with making the 13 playable in the GC, but “unofficial” factions usually aren’t as full-featured and polished which is what worries me. Norway in the Tuetonic Campaign couldn’t even make buildings, the Mongols for some reason are always depicted as Muslim because they’re too lazy to give them pagan stuffs, etc. So at least I’m hoping the 13/US faction in the GC is filled out enough to be interesting.
27/02/2009 at 17:02 theleif says:
@Lukasz
See you on the battlefield (once the multiplayer patch get released)!
@Real Horrorshow
You’ll get a mod in a week that lets you play as the colonies. The TW mod community is fantastic.
Tip: If you have M2:TW, try the Stainless Steel mod. There’s even lots of mods for that mod!
http://www.twcenter.net/
27/02/2009 at 17:10 Jeremy says:
Well shoot, I may have to get this then, but I’m already playing DoW II and Drakensang, so I’m not entirely sure where to fit it in at this point, maybe I’ll wait for some patches to play it out.
27/02/2009 at 18:15 Dain says:
Hey Kieron, with regard to the firing drills, are you restricted to one at a time? And are they a linear research progression or branching? It always felt like it’d make more sense to have the option of several on the battlefield as looking at them it seems like different drills suit different situations.
27/02/2009 at 18:35 sinister agent says:
Has anyone else played the game “Imperial Glory”? It was released in … 06 I think, and it is basically exactly like this game, as far as I can tell.
Yes, and it was full of great ideas that were rather poorly implemented, and as a game just didn’t hang together anywhere near as well as the Total War games. High points were the maps with win conditions like ‘first person to secure this building for five minutes wins’ instead of just ‘kill everyone’, the diplomatic options like marching through a friendly neighbour’s land, and the buildings. But it just didn’t work very well, and you started off in such a poor position that merely surviving the first few years was an excercise in frustration. And, I think most cripplingly of all, your actual battlefield options were so limited that you couldn’t even tell troops to disengage once they’d initiated an attack – if they started a losing battle, you could just forget about them, because they’re all as good as dead.
Empire looks and sounds interesting. I’m not surprised that the naval combat wasn’t a big deal, frankly – I never thought it was a significant omission from the earlier games. I’m pretty disappointed that they’ve left out the Napoleonic bit, but otherwise I am very interested in this one, now. Cheers, Kiers.
27/02/2009 at 19:34 Funky Badger says:
Horrowshow: I expect it’s residual Dubya fallout. Don’t take it personally, it’ll probably wear off in a few years.
27/02/2009 at 19:57 jalf says:
@Real Horrorshow: Eh, as I understood it, finishing the road to independence tutorial thingy would unlock the USA for play in the proper campaign map. The opposing side in the demo land battle was American. Also preordering from play.com gives you a USA-exclusive unit, which I’d take as a pretty strong hint that the USA is in fact, you know, playable. I obviously haven’t played the game yet, so can’t say for sure, but… Let’s wait until we’ve tried the game before complaining too much, shall we?
(checking the game’s website gives me this, right at the top of the news section: http://www.totalwar.com/empire/gameinfo/factions.php?id=26 )
Sounds to me like the USA will be playable.
Perhaps because a lot of other Americans have the ability to boil any discussion on any subject down to “but does it give enough attention to the USA?” ;)
It’s not like Okami’s response was particularly hurtful or offensive. He just pointed out that you *can* play your country in about 99% of all other games. He didn’t say “The USA sucks, and it’d ruin the game if they were playable”. He didn’t even mention Bush. Calm down.
For some reason, Americans tend to be *extremely* sensitive, if not downright paranoid about their country. For some reason, it Must Not Be Joked About. If you want to know why your question gets the responses it does, look at how you react to them. With fear that your country is being insulted, with anger that your country is not being given the attention it deserves. You’re *convinced* that whatever response you got was an attack on your country.
It wasn’t. It’s just that to the rest of us, the world doesn’t revolve around the USA. It’s no better, worse, more or less unique, than any other country in the world. The only way in which it stands out is in how seriously its inhabitants take it.
Relax, don’t automatically assume that people are on a mission to insult your country. Usually they’re not. They just don’t see a need to venerate it either. When European players ask why their country isn’t playable, they get much the same answers.
Cheer up. Nothing good comes of taking your country too seriously! I’m from Denmark, no one has taken my country seriously for at least 400 years. It’s not so bad. :)
Not at all. Try counting the countries. There are plenty that have never been playable. Norway and Sweden come to mind, although Sweden seems to be playable in ETW at least.
27/02/2009 at 21:38 Unlucky Irish says:
Does Scotland feature at all in the game? I know the website lists Great Britain as a faction but it also features a “Clansmen” unit (which, to be honest, looks weirdly like a particularly well armed English tourist…) and if the game starts in 1700 then Scotland would feature, in one form or another, as a separate nation for the first 9 years of the campaign at least. It’s not a deal breaker, it would just be a nice touch.
@ Horrorshow: During the 18th century was most defiantly a minor power; including it in a game about imperialism would be like including the Republic of Ireland in a game about World War 2. Accurate yes, but with out much propose.
27/02/2009 at 22:02 sinister agent says:
I’m from Denmark, no one has taken my country seriously for at least 400 years.
That’s simply not true. I, for one, take good bacon extremely seriously.
27/02/2009 at 22:08 theleif says:
@ jalf
27/02/2009 at 22:10 theleif says:
Ok, i give upon using the tags. that was not a quote.
27/02/2009 at 22:20 Doc MacRae says:
@Unlucky Irish – no, Scotland is not playable. It starts as English territory but will be prone to uprisings and may form its own country if it rebels successfully.
Modders will unlock most of the non-playable factions within 15 minutes of the game’s release, so people should relax about which faction is or isn’t playable. And then later modders will create better polished versions of the game with more varied and historically accurate faction choices.
27/02/2009 at 22:32 Unlucky Irish says:
Hmm interesting, thanks for replying. I’m really looking forward to the mods that will eventually spring up; particularly (with the addition of ship-to-ship action) a Viking or Dark Age themed total conversion.
Oh or steam-punk. Everyone loves steam-punk.
27/02/2009 at 22:37 jalf says:
Pah, just because your country is less important than ours… :D
Always loved stomping over Sweden in the first 3 turns of a MTW game. ;)
27/02/2009 at 22:39 Real Horrorshow says:
@jalf: It’s not Okami’s comment alone, it’s the constant stream of comments like that whenever the 13C’s/US are brought up in relation to ETW. I could go to twcenter.org, make a thread called “I like that the U.S. is featured in the game” and probably get 2 pages in 30 minutes. I would say it’s not me being sensitive but this Angry Internet Men gang who cries out whenever they’re mentioned. This trend is 100% fact from my perspective, I’m not paranoid and I’m not imagining it. I’m also not assuming anything about the reasons for it, but it is true.
And I knew all that already. What I was wishing was for the 13C’s/US to be playable in the main Grand Campaign. They’re already there, which is why I can’t comprehend this venom every time I suggest it’d be cool for them to be a full featured GC faction.
“For some reason, Americans tend to be *extremely* sensitive, if not downright paranoid about their country. For some reason, it Must Not Be Joked About. If you want to know why your question gets the responses it does, look at how you react to them. With fear that your country is being insulted, with anger that your country is not being given the attention it deserves. You’re *convinced* that whatever response you got was an attack on your country.”
Sorry but this is one hell of a reach, my friend. I just want the deepest and richest strategic experience possible in a Total War game, this has nothing to do with percieved slights to the U.S. or prejudices. More full featured factions = Good. More strategic and tactical posibilites = Good. MORE CONTENT = GOOD.
NOW Is when I’m getting a little offended, BY YOU, for somehow believing you know everything I think and feel about this situation simply because I’m from the U.S. Talk about prejudice, my god! I just want a more full featured game, and you automatically assume that the only reason I want this change (and several other changes by the way, including playable New Spain with possible Mexico emergence) is because I’m some super patriotic American who’s got his panties in a bunch.
“It’s just that to the rest of us, the world doesn’t revolve around the USA. It’s no better, worse, more or less unique, than any other country in the world. The only way in which it stands out is in how seriously its inhabitants take it.”
So then you imply that I think the world DOES revolve around the U.S. and that I think it’s the greatest country on Earth and better than everyone else. Again, this is an extreme asumption based on a stereotype of Americans. Give me a fucking break, honestly. It wasn’t like that before but honestly your post is so full of presumptuous asumptions about my state of mind, based on bullshit stereotypes, that now I’m annoyed.
27/02/2009 at 23:04 reiver says:
Scotland isn’t “English territory” it’s part of Great Britain. Also United Provinces (Holland) is a playable faction.
From what i understand the major factions (shown here: http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-total-war-20090224035320557.html?page=mediaFull ) have advanced AI compared to the minor factions.
27/02/2009 at 23:07 Doc MacRae says:
Scotland isn’t “English territory” it’s part of Great Britain.
Shrug. The effect is the same in game.
27/02/2009 at 23:08 Erlam says:
I’d love to see Canada featured in a game, well, ever.
In this case, the furor I see reminds me of the hilarity that was playing as ‘the US’ in a certain Civilization style strategy game. Remember when the US had spearmen, and horse archers? Good old history.
27/02/2009 at 23:10 A-Scale says:
I repeat my belief that the English are extremely sensitive to any mention of the new centers of the world, or of people in those areas being concerned with their country’s effect in the media or the world. This seems to me to be a byproduct of England’s fall as a great power following World War Two. England used to be where it was at. If you couldn’t find it in London, you couldn’t find it. These days England is a pale husk of its former glory. We will probably suffer their fate some day.
27/02/2009 at 23:14 reiver says:
Shrug. The effect is the same in game.
If the faction was called England it would be…
28/02/2009 at 00:00 Poet says:
I have bought every single TW game up until now. Isn’t anyone else pissed that you have to pay $80 to get the full game and that the extra $30 only nets you 4 new troops?!?!
I don’t mind collector editions with cool maps and stuff but when you start going all microsoft vista on me I get pissed.
As for the defensive country crap its universal I hate to tell ya and its not like your going to hear from the ones who have a more empathetic view of nationality.
I do however rail against all the compos you English/Europeans get that us Americans are locked out of for some bizarre as of yet unexplained reason. I would bet dollars to donuts that Americans count for a large part of the revenue this site brings in and yet we are consitently left in the cold for all the giveaways.
28/02/2009 at 00:19 Buch says:
@Horrorshow
Why would you want to play a gimped GB? At the end of he day the US was a bunch of dieseased immigrants who the British decided (wrongly it seems) werent worth bothering about so left them to there own devices to consentrate on India …
28/02/2009 at 00:26 Alec Meer says:
That’s enough nation-ranting, chaps. Delete-o-tron will ride again if this thread continues to be less than civil.
28/02/2009 at 00:51 Rich_P says:
Buch has a point. The Continental Army was ragtag to the extreme; diseased; prone to mass desertions once enlistments expired; paid in worthless currency; stiffed by greedy businessmen who would rather profiteer than help the colonies. The Continental Congress was more of an enemy than a friend; George Washington spent years trying to cajole them into doing something meaningful for the cause. Independence was won by a comparatively small group of leaders and soldiers.
So in order to make the Continentals fun to play, they’re modeled as another shiny army with nice uniforms, even though officers would go into battle wearing nothing more than bedsheets, or the soldiers would march without shoes.
It’s probably better to include the Americans as part of a scripted quasi-tutorial campaign, given the historical circumstances of the Revolution. Playing a typical TW game with the campaign map and stuff would absolutely suck as an American. The Constitution wasn’t even ratified until 1789! The navy would consist of a few privateers and maybe some crazy badass John Paul Jones characters.
Anyway, the Revolution was about diplomacy, long retreats, and desperate maneuvers, something probably left to another game.
Sincerely,
A Yank
28/02/2009 at 01:07 reiver says:
It’s not even that, Rich. If the campaign started in 1770 it might be feasible to include them as a playable faction but since it starts in 1700 they didn’t even possess the meagre credentials you give them.
28/02/2009 at 01:09 jalf says:
Jeez, cheer up. You did say you were “seriously curious” about why you got the reactions you did. Don’t shoot the messenger when you get a reply. ;)
Let’s just get it out of the way to begin with: I don’t have a problem with you, your country, or the US being playable in ETW. I’m not trying to say that you Americans are all alike or anything else.
I don’t doubt that it’s true you get a lot of responses to that thread, but the conclusions you draw from them are your own subjective judgments. Once again, let me point out that other countries have been left out of this and previous TW games as well. And they too have ranted and complained, and got dozens of pages of responses about how “it doesn’t matter”. Try browsing the TW forums archives from when MTW2 came out. The threads complaining that Sweden wasn’t playable easily grew to tens of pages too. Other countries have been left out, and people have gotten a lot of varied responses when pointing that out too, so your situation is not as unique as you might believe.
It was my impression that they *are* playable there. Once you unlock them, that is. It would seem strange to bundle the preorder version with a USA-exclusive unit and then not make them playable in the campaign. Or is there something I’m missing? Do they have their own separate campaign, after the Road To Independence tutorial thing?
Once again, there *is* no venom. Just a bunch of people saying “eh, it’s no big deal”, “my favorite country is there, so I don’t care either way”, or “other countries got left out too”. Don’t assume the worst. The most venomous I’ve seen here was your comment that Okami should “drop the snarky attitude”.
No, you missed my point. I was talking about your reaction to Okami’s post, and other similar cases. It generally does not take much to make an American go in defensive mode, for whatever reason. Take it easy, don’t assume the worst. As I read Okami’s post, there was nothing hostile or offensive in it. Just a cheap attempt to lighten the mood a bit. But you assumed that it must mean that Okami and others like him were actively opposed to the US being playable. I don’t think that was the case. Why assume the worst? Why get upset over such a small essentially irrelevant comment? That was the point I was trying to make. Getting steamed up over innocent remarks to the effect of “eh, doesn’t matter, does it?” is only going to reinforce the prejudice that Americans can’t handle criticism, and think their country deserves a special place of honor, in TW and everywhere else. Even if that’s obviously not true in the general case. And if that stereotype exists, then that’s what you’ll be faced with when you ask about the US being playable.
Sorry if I offended. You did say you honestly wanted to know why these questions about getting the US included got you the responses it did. I tried to answer. To be clear, I’m not talking about you specifically, or calling Americans Bad People or anything like that. But when an American asks why the USA is not playable, that is what people on the forum in question see: Just another American. They don’t see you as a unique person, but an American wanting more love for America. I’m not generalizing about your motivations for wanting to play the US. I’m generalizing about the motivations others perceive when reading your post.
Again, sorry if it offended you, but try reading your own post and tell me you didn’t get defensive. ;)
But no, I made no such assumption. I’ve always had a preference for playing my own country as well.
And I agree, the more countries are playable, the better.
No, I imply that it’s an easy assumption to make when answering your question. ;)
I wasn’t out to get you, bash your country or insult Americans. Cheer up, and don’t take it all so personally. Then you might see that the answers you get to requesting the US being playable aren’t as evil and hostile as you’d thought. :)
@Buch: Why not play a gimped GB? A large part of the fun of the TW games is that you can take the smallest, most gimped and unremarkable country through to world domination. I can see the appeal in playing the US.
Once again, ease down on the paranoia. Have you any idea how many compos Europeans get locked out of too? The problem is usually different legislation in different countries making it ridiculously hard to allow people to enter a competition regardless of which country they’re from. Even within Europe, it’s relatively rare to see one that’s open to every country in the continent. A UK-only compo doesn’t do me much good.
Every country misses out on heaps of competitions organized in other countries. Unfortunately, it’s not an easy issue to solve. (For some reason, I doubt you’ll see much legislation being passed on the basis of “I want RPS compos to be available to people from every country”. :)
No one’s actively keeping your country out in the cold. But on UK-based websites, organizing competitions where Americans are eligible is a pain. Just like allowing European entrants in American competitions is rare too.
Now can we all please be happy?
My copy of ETW is currently being packaged, so yay \o/
28/02/2009 at 01:16 jalf says:
That doesn’t have to be a problem, though. In a sense, the US existed back then. As in, there were a lot of people there, and while they were fairly reliant on the UK, they didn’t really feel part of it. ETW could easily portray them as a kind of “proto-USA” in the early years, and then have the necessary scripted events making it official when the time comes.
Consider how the MTW nations were treated. Denmark wasn’t really a country as such back when MTW started. But it’s there anyway because it had a role to play later on. Germany was a constant flux of states and empires, but MTW had to settle on one, even if it messes up the history a bit. There’s no reason why the US couldn’t be playable from the year 1700. It might be poor and fairly powerless, but so are a lot of the European countries in the early game. Perhaps the US would be more so, but on the other hand, it also has a more sheltered location.
I don’t see why it couldn’t work.
28/02/2009 at 01:49 Rich_P says:
It could work, just as playing as the Americans in 3000 BC works in Civ IV :D If ETW was concerned with historical accuracy, the Continental Army wouldn’t look near as respectable. But I want fun, not pure history dammit! In any event, playing as the Americans could be a fun exercise in counterfactual history, but I don’t care either way.
Also: the Constitution was ratified in 1788; Washington’s first term as president began in 1789. The new edit function makes me sad.
28/02/2009 at 01:50 sinister agent says:
Okay, this is just silly. There’s a far simpler explanation for most of the complaining that can be easily perceived as anti-americanism whenever america is prominently featured in a game: America or Americans feature in some form in the vast majority of games that Europeans play. Because most of them are made by or with input from Americans, and America is an enormous market that’s easier to cater to than Europe (simply because of the lack of language barrier issues).
It’s not because it’s America – it’s because it’s the same country as in many other games, and that can be kind of wearisome.
Anyway, it makes sense to have a modern power of some kind in north america, if only just because it’d make the game more interesting. Balls to the historical accuracy, frankly. Throw the Americans in, and the Aztecs. Hell, throw Pakistan in if it makes things more interesting.
28/02/2009 at 02:03 apnea says:
Steampunk mods would definitely be welcome. Just imagine a Difference Engine mod, playing as the Manhattan Commune or some such.
@jalf
The tension you had to defuse by stating the obvious goes a long way in proving your point.
28/02/2009 at 02:04 Sucram says:
I wish we had the Doctor of War here to resolve this dispute.
28/02/2009 at 02:16 Spanish Technophobe says:
For what it’s worth, I believe there was a turn-based WWII game in which you could play as any country on the map, neutrals included. You could play as the Republic of Ireland and CONQUER SPAIN.
Or something. I haven’t played the full version, but I imagine playing a minor country means you’re just a bloodthirsty sideshow to the main event. Stuff like Brazil taking over South America (Guyana’s no big deal because hey, the Germans are gonna take France any second) in an irrelevant brush war against Argentina.
28/02/2009 at 02:21 Rich_P says:
@Spanish: Are you thinking of Hearts of Iron? That feature is what got me to try the demo, but my brain isn’t big enough to handle that game. One of my favorite things to do in 4X games is play as a minor or neutral power. Sometimes it’s more fun to watch than play as a hegemonic power!
28/02/2009 at 02:49 Spanish Technophobe says:
No, it was some iteration of Making History.
I agree with you: it’s way more fun to crawl up the Southern Cone and seize Mexico (and–dare I say it–the United States?) with only your gumption and a shabby gang of conscripts than to try and win the Battle of Britain with state-of-the-art guns .
Note: Conquering the USA is pretty much impossible playing as a South American power, as the USA has hellishly advanced units that it has to keep making to keep up the good fight in Europe and the Pacific (I guess; as I said, I never played the full game). Meanwhile, Argentina has only gauchos and dreams of a higher GDP.
28/02/2009 at 04:17 Dorian Cornelius Jasper says:
*Waits for Napoleon Expansion. And hopes for eventual non-European, non-USA-ican playable factions somewhere, out there.*
Though if I get tired of waiting and hoping I might just pick it up anyway.
28/02/2009 at 08:51 Frye says:
Too bad they still didn’t fix the pathfinding in cities thing. Actually, (in the old games) it wasn’t really the pathfinding that was flawed but the annoying habit of soldiers to first walk to their spot in the formation (which might be covered by a building), before the group as a whole started moving. Nasty, when you are trying to retreat but your pikemen run TOWARDS the enemy archers. It’s like the individual soldiers had no AI, only the groups did.
28/02/2009 at 12:58 Funky Badger says:
Sinister: \pakistan’s only existed for about 60 years.
Now, I’d like to see a Pashtun faction…
28/02/2009 at 21:51 Conquests says:
Is the cited gameness of E:TW meant as honest enjoyment that makes you realize that “simulations are unnededly meticulous”, or is this accessible as in shallow at the expense of pure healthy depth of gameplay?
I don’t know what people actually mean with “this is a game not a simulation”… what are both?
28/02/2009 at 21:54 Conquests says:
Im all for accessibility and glamour… but not if it’s dumbed down, I still want complex gameplay.
01/03/2009 at 02:24 Mad Doc MacRae says:
Most of the reviewers sound overwhelmed when discussing the campaign map, so “dumbed down” probably doesn’t apply.
01/03/2009 at 03:20 Spanish Technophobe says:
Devil’s advocate: it might be overwhelming but still dumb. On the other hand, the other Empire games have been really smart (AI notwithstanding) so probably not. Honestly, the Rome map was overwhelming for me, so this new one really isn’t my game.
01/03/2009 at 16:45 A-Scale says:
Can someone tell me why the back rows of my army won’t shoot even if they’re within 20 yards of the enemy? It’s VERY frustrating.
01/03/2009 at 17:34 sinister agent says:
Sinister: \pakistan’s only existed for about 60 years.
Now, I’d like to see a Pashtun faction…
Wow, it’s almost as if you’ve stumbled across the whole point of my post!
01/03/2009 at 18:27 Pundabaya says:
I’ve never played a Total War game, any suggestions on which one to give a go?
02/03/2009 at 01:15 Alistair says:
I believe you need to research the ability to have all rows of your musketeers fire in turn…
16/03/2009 at 22:29 tigershuffle says:
A-Scale……..Historical Accuracy!! Its a tech tree thang…..in real life the amount of smoke and the noise etc makes it v. difficult for rear ranks to fire literally over their comrades shoulders. You end up with lots of deaf soldiers. It took lots n lots of drilling…..and all went to pot in the heat of battle. The better drilled would usually win! Accuracy counted for little. 50yrds max..it was sheer volume and speed of firing that counted.
22/04/2009 at 16:17 U.P says:
how can you unlock other countries like knights of st. john?