By Tim Stone on March 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm.
Having dabbled with Empire: Total War for the best part of a week, I reckon I’ve slain enough redcoats, sunk enough sloops, and lost enough rakes to sit in judgement. After the jump, the thoughts of a man who’s now so enthusiastic about 18th Century warfare, he’s bought himself a tricorn hat, a bicorn hat, and a unicorn hat.
My first hour with Empire wasn’t a particularly happy one. First, the ironically labelled Graphics Options screen vetted my system, found it wanting, and barred me from selecting certain ‘ultra’ settings. I pleaded with it, suggested various compromises (If I lower the grass and tree quality, can my troops have shapely noses and crisp uniform textures?) even started tampering with preference files, but it was all to no avail. The bastard thing wouldn’t give an inch. Not a good start.
Then I launched straight into ‘The Road to Independence’ – a kind of Kingdoms-style campaign-cum-tutorial – and, first battle, found myself confronted with a sight that made my inner grognard (Percival Urquhart III) recoil in horror. There, marching down the hill towards my Jamestown militiamen were serried ranks of Iroquois braves.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to fill this piece with petty wargamerly complaints about musket reload times and the number of buttons on Prussian gaiters, but I do feel if you’re going to feature native cultures in your game you should make some effort to model their approach to warfare. Even American Conquest did a better job of representing the contrast between European and Native American tactics.
But it’s hard to stay mad at Empire. A short time after slaughtering those remarkably well-drilled tribesman I gazed upon the gorgeous Quebec map for the first time and my misgivings melted away like snowflakes on a hot cannon barrel. None of the previews I’d read or screenshots I’d gawped at had really prepared me for the scale and beauty of the new battlefields. Even the demo didn’t hint at it. For years now RTSs have been palming us off with horribly shrunken topography. When a title actually tries to represent landscape realistically, the effect is quite stunning. The venues tend to be more interesting too. Features like walls and fences, hovels and carts give engagements welcome personality and shape, even if they do make positioning formations a little tricky at times.
As my Bangalore AAR suggests, fighting pitched battles is usually a joy. Percival can grumble all he likes about the shortcomings of the TacAI, – the heavy weapons it leaves unprotected, the generals it leaves motionless under missile fire, its inappropriate use of squares and miraculous use of cannons – I’m frankly too busy soaking up the spectacle and struggling to secure victories to listen to him.
Where I concede he may have a point is in his dissatisfaction with the current state of fortress assaults. While CA have eliminated the siege towers and battering rams that caused occasional silliness in the past (all infantry now carry ropes and grappling irons) their absence hasn’t made those vital strongpoint-snatching scraps any more credible. Too many times over the past seven days I’ve watched my troops scamper up walls unchallenged, or witnessed defenders going up and down ropes like demented Indian fakirs (actually, to be fair, some of those defenders may actually have been demented Indian fakirs). Too often I’ve occupied buildings or victory zones inside a fort and not been plausibly punished for my audacity.
The fact that very few wargamers would place a naval wargame in a personal Top Five or Top Ten says a lot about this unfashionable sub-genre. Expanses of featureless brine don’t make for particularly interesting arenas, and craft that can be outstripped and out-turned by dawdling dolphins don’t make for particularly exciting combatants. Given these inherent limitations, I think what CA has done with their new marine battle element is admirable.
Tactically they aren’t offering us anything that we haven’t seen before in titles like Privateers Bounty. The wind gauge jockeying, the broadsides, the ammo choices, the boarding… nothing new there. What Empire provides that you can’t get elsewhere is a) a rich campaign context, and b) a sense of just how breathtaking these battles were to behold. First-rate warships of the time were the most impressive mobile objects on the planet – floating communities filled with activity and artillery. The models in this game with their industrious crews, intricate rigging, and tier upon tier of death-spitting cannons, communicate this rather well. Given the fantastic detail, I’d love to have had a slightly more elastic camera at my disposal, and access to a Man of War II-style first-person captain’s view. To watch from sea level or bridge, one of these majestic monsters sail past or sink forlornly below the waves, would have been priceless.
Percival is muttering something about absurd turn rates, absent tacking, and the lack of coastal forts and naval bombardments. Rather than get distracted by his glass-half-empty negativity, I’ll skip onto discussion of my early, largely positive, campaign experiences.
To describe the Road to Independence campaign as an extended tutorial does it a disservice. There’s days of absorbing play in this semi-scripted four-part challenge covering the French and Indian Wars, the War of Independence, and beyond. It gave me my first taste of great new features like satellite towns (thriving territories now spawn secondary settlements that can be developed and captured in a similar way to capitals) class politics (citizens are now split into proles and gents) and research. A little part of me – my left testicle - wishes CA had come up with some devilishly clever alternative to the gnarly old tech-tree. It’s only when I try to picture that alternative, and fail, that I have to admit that the use of this strategy staple was probably the wisest way to go.
I am slightly missing my MTW2 agents, missions, and family tree (superseded, appropriately enough, by a government system). Rakes, gentlemen, and priests have similar talents to their Medieval equivalents, they just seem to lack some of the charm. Maybe if the game had offered a few more outcome videos, I might feel differently. Currently, only the duels fought by gentlemen trigger movies. Then again perhaps I’m just a little weary of Total War’s study-odds-then-press-button-and-pray approach to covert capers. Would an optional mini-game be so very wrong?
That wet blanket Percival says ‘Yes, it would’. He’s also badgering me to mention that the Road to Independence campaign is going to feel decidedly dubious to anyone familiar with AGEOD’s treatment of the same subject. The fact that Empire doesn’t do logistics or weather-related attrition, means you can build a massive army and stomp around the map like a 200-foot grizzly bear. What Percy fails to acknowledge is just how depressing it is to watch a vast army dwindle to nothing enroute to an objective. Who needs realism like that?
What might have given the Road to Independence campaign a little more resonance and grit, is a more aggressive British AI and more elusive native forces. I waited in vain for amphibious invasions that never came (there seems little point in investing in naval strength) and intercepted and eliminated my enemy’s native forays with disturbing ease. Was that just down to the difficulty setting? I’ll have to play it again to find out.
That’s part of the problem of any early Empire assessment. There’s just so much to see. I’ve been so wrapped up on the Indian subcontinent lately, I’ve seen little of European battlefields and units. Normally on acquiring a new Total War, one of my first ports of call would be the Historical Battle section. For some strange reason CA seem to have left it virtually empty this time. Where’s Blenheim, Kolin, Plassey, Fontenoy and Panipat? Where’s the Glorious First of June?
Crikey, I’m starting to sound like Percy. All criticisms I level at Empire really need to be qualified with a glib-but-true “but I can’t remember the last time a strategy game entertained me quite this efficiently”. That wonderful cheese-and-pickle balance between the real-time violence and the turn-based housekeeping is as perfect as ever, and the new elements, period, and map areas make it all feel improbably fresh. Over the last few days I’ve fought engagements so bloody and tense, they’ve literally been decided by a single musket volley or cannonball. I’ve witnessed battle scenes so stirring they deserve to be painted in oils and hung in gloomy regimental museums. In short I’ve been totally captivated.
Whatever your inner Percival is telling you, I say ignore him. Strategy games this sumptuous, subtle and suffused with history come along extremely rarely.
05/03/2009 at 16:19 Dude says:
I have started playing it, but only a had a few battle, so the IA really is up to the challenge?
What was your difficulty setting? (at the org (totalwar.org) one guy noticed that AI seems to lose all stupidness on very hard….)
05/03/2009 at 16:20 DarkNoghri says:
But how will it compare to StarCraft 2?
05/03/2009 at 16:20 Nimic says:
I just bought this yesterday, and I have to admit it’s looking quite good. I also have to admit that as of yet I’m still rubbish at 18th century warfare, but I expect I’ll get there eventually. I was a little overwhelmed at first, but I just have to pick a country and try to play my own way, instead of fretting over what the game wants me to do.
05/03/2009 at 16:21 JoeDuck says:
I have found yesterday’s first experience with TW overwhelming. The grand campaign seems to start in a situation way more complex than previous TW games. I remember Rome, with two territories and a safe frontier. By comparison, and after 3 hours of play i’m ready to declare Spain’s starting position as strategically untenable. I will prevail but this game is going to unforgivably force me to work for it.
I love it.
05/03/2009 at 16:24 The Poisoned Sponge says:
I’m playing through as Maratha, and slowly taking over India really is a lot of fun. Hindu Warriors are bloody fearsome.
05/03/2009 at 16:26 Wallace says:
I had a similar experience with the British in Episode 3 of The Road to Independence (on medium difficulty, at least). After seizing a few of the bigger towns they just seemed to give up and wait for me to roll down the East coast.
05/03/2009 at 16:28 Catastrophe says:
Is it a Sandbox RTS where your only mission is Conquer the world? If so; I’m liking the idea of that.
05/03/2009 at 16:29 Rob Zacny says:
Tim, I’ve heard from numerous people that the Road to Independence tutorial is much easier than the game. For my part, I’ve been playing as the Prussians in a grand campaign on the highest difficulty, and so far I’m very impressed with the strategic AI. It seems rational, praise be, and has kept my back to the wall for about twenty-five turns. The tactical AI has also destroyed five of my armies in engagements where it has had a modest superiority in numbers.
I’m able to overlook most of the historical inaccuracies with this series, as that’s crucial to enjoying it. The fact that the games are named “Total War” is a pretty strong indicator that you’re playing a fantasy version of history. So long as they bring an appropriately credible flavor and a campaign AI that can put up a fight, these can be brilliant games. I thought Rome and Medieval 2 both failed to hold up their end of the bargain, but it looks like Creative Assembly has returned to form with this one.
05/03/2009 at 16:42 The Hammer says:
Man, lovely Wot I Think, here! I can’t wait to get my hands on this game, and if the series has developed THIS much, then bring on Rome 2!
05/03/2009 at 16:54 Mad Doc MacRae says:
Percival has convinced me to wait for the first non-gameday patch.
05/03/2009 at 17:00 Ginger Yellow says:
I have to agree. I was grinning ear to ear when the Quebecois tried to break their siege and I first saw the clifftop city. I was then somewhat perplexed when my soldiers would only walk at a crawl, taking five minutes to move 100 yards. I’ve since learned that the ground they were on was a swamp, which was hard to make out from a zoomed out view. Still, it didn’t matter too much as the French were funnelled into my killzone and massacred.
To be fair, it is an extended tutorial. It’s also a lengthy campaign, but it’s a tutorial campaign. Hopefully there’ll be a proper Independence campaign in future, whether it’s a mod or an expansion.
I’m absolutely loving the game so far, although I’ve only just finished episode 2 of RtI. For some reason I find the pace and structure of the land battles much easier to handle, although that may partly be the enhanced UI. I’ve yet to delve into the intricacies of the campaign map, obviously, and I can’t wait.
05/03/2009 at 17:02 Ginger Yellow says:
Oh yeah, I also meant to mention that the TotalWar.org forumites are saying that the AI is much, much better/more aggressive on Very Hard – a big leap even from Hard.
05/03/2009 at 17:05 Alex says:
I’ve been enjoying Empire greatly, despite the fact that I’m really, really bad at it. But then, if it being possible to actually enjoy losing isn’t the mark of a good game, I don’t know what is.
05/03/2009 at 17:14 Mad Doc MacRae says:
Ginger – you an Orgah?
05/03/2009 at 17:14 Turin Turambar says:
I wouldn’t consider the AI’s behavior in VH as “normal”. Who knows what huge economy/leadership/moral boost is recieving the AI in that difficulty, skewing the impression of the AI quality.
Even the behavior in the strategic map can be affected, for example perhaps it’s coded that AI should be aggresive if they have an army 75% more bigger than yours. If they have always armies twice as big as yours thanks to economy boost, that could explain the AI aggressiveness, it doesn’t mean the AI is enough smart as to know how be efficiently offensive in a war. AI should be judged in normal conditions.
05/03/2009 at 17:15 Jimmay says:
Is anyone else foregoing the purchase of this game purely because of the scope of it?
I’ve been a TW fan since Rome literally changed my videogaming life, but between work, school, and what little personal life I have, I know buying this will just torment me because I won’t be able to fully explore it. Ah, well, to fight the cravings, I started a new M2TW campaign because I can comfortable putter away at it for an hour here or there and then leave it alone.
Sad isn’t it? Am I in this boat alone?
05/03/2009 at 17:32 Turin Turambar says:
Yes
05/03/2009 at 17:37 Dude says:
Nope Jimmay, feeling the same here, family (well baby) work leave me with little time to play. Still when I do I enjoy a deep game from time to time, Empire seems perfect for that!
05/03/2009 at 17:39 Ginger Yellow says:
Only since today. Or, rather, not for the last 2 years or so until today.
05/03/2009 at 17:53 Spanish Technophobe says:
I’ll own this game when I have a computer that can run it. The demo was a slideshow for me, and I’d really love to have it look like the screenshots in the post.
As it stands, I’m already trying to conquer Gaul in R:TW while keeping the Senate from declaring war on me (“Take Corsica? Why?”). Never played the game before, so this is just the most badass thing in the world right now.
05/03/2009 at 17:54 Spanish Technophobe says:
Oops. My bad. “Corsica” should be “Sardinia” in that parenthetical comment.
05/03/2009 at 17:59 Piispa says:
“Would an optional mini-game be so very wrong?”
Yes it would.
05/03/2009 at 18:01 JonFitt says:
I am also valiantly defending the walls of resistance against the onslaught of a new Total War purchase. This Wot-I-think does not help my cause. At some point I will crumble and be totally absorbed for weeks.
I’ve played them all since Shogun (Shogun 2 next please), and any of them would definitely be on my Desert Island (with electricity) Games list.
05/03/2009 at 18:07 JonFitt says:
“Would an optional mini-game be so very wrong?”
It would be a good idea. I can’t stand random failure, and I am one of those people who would rather reload and retry than have my 98% success rate action end in failure.
I guess some element of chance is needed, but perhaps a mini-game using skill (mental preferred) along with risk/reward weighted by the level of your spy would be good.
05/03/2009 at 18:13 modulus says:
Well. I’ve got my own inner Takeda. Got my own inner Leif. Even got myself some inner Caesar. But nope, no inner Percival ’round here?
Am I the only one that can’t make a purchase for a Total War game (quite fond of the series) due to my contempt for the time period at hand? To be honest, it’s the reason I stayed very far away from Age of Empires III as well.
05/03/2009 at 18:13 Shamanic Miner says:
“Barry Lyndon” DVD on the laptop and E:TW on the big PC, If I had any sort of corned hat it would be on too right now.
05/03/2009 at 18:28 DonMcC says:
Okay, so I have not jumped in to say this before, but I really feel like it needs saying now.
_This is exactly why I read Rock Paper Shotgun._
You could have written a piece of rampant fanboyism about this title. It is expected. Every other article about this game is flush with it, falling all over themselves attempting to praise. And I would have accepted it gratefully if you had, because I am just getting into this game and I am blown away by the audacious scope of it.
But you didn’t write what everyone else is writing. You wrote everything that occurred to you, everything real, all these things that could have been better, a clear indication of just how much gaming you have actually done over the years.. You gave that voice a name, Percival and gave him a place and role in your article about how great this game was.
Of course, maybe this was just a clever ploy to say “yeah, all those little niggly things you can come up with that are wrong with this game.. they are such small things compared to all the things right about this game” and so this might be the biggest piece of fanboyism of all.
But it doesn’t matter, because it was, as always (or at least most often) brilliant! Thank you for finally lending some intelligence and thought to the world of games journalism.
05/03/2009 at 18:31 Lukasz says:
@Modulus.
I am opposite. I have great dislike for medieval period, for what it brought, for what it stands.
but 18th century, end of age of sail, beginning of industrial revolution… that’s some good stuff.
05/03/2009 at 18:40 Spanish Technophobe says:
All this talk about the time periods reminded me:
Have we discussed the problems with portraying warfare after this period? That is, imperialism in Africa, Asia, etc., fascism/authoritarianism in the 30s. If so, where?
Also, are both American continents represented, or just North America?
05/03/2009 at 18:40 zor says:
The AI oscillates between vastly improved and worse than ever. In general (pathfinding apart) it is a lot better, but I still find that many battles are decided by AI idiocy, and when it gets it wrong it does it in style. The difference is once every now and then the AI actually does something smart and can cause you all sorts of trouble. It is possible to lose a battle even if you are not totally outnumbered/outclassed in terms of troops… not often enough for sure, but that hadn’t happened to me even once post-Shogun.
05/03/2009 at 18:50 Jockie says:
@GingerYellow. thanks for clarifying the swamp thing (hoho), I honestly thought my game was hideously bugged when i fought there, the problem is the animation doesnt reflect that its a swamp, the units just move in slow motion.
The AI still does some odd things, like the regiment of grenadiers who decided to use a wall for cover and sit there, whilst the whole of my army was behind them anyway. Fences are a grievances too, try walking a unit down with a fence through the middle of them and they slow to a crawl as the units adjacent to the fence hop over from side to side constantly.
Im still playing the Road to independance but my patriotism is getting the better of me, not sure if i can tolerate playing as the Yanks, slaughtering british much longer.
Also, why does the tutorial women hint that allying with the french would be a great thing to do, only to see the french sit in their tiny little island colony, swapping stacks around occassionally, but doing absolutely bugger all to actually aid in the war against the English.
Gripes aside, i’m enjoying it, think im getting the hand of the land warfare and i’ll probably hop into a Grand Campaign as the Brits pretty soon.
05/03/2009 at 19:01 Ginger Yellow says:
South America is a trade theatre, but not a theatre of war. You can send ships there to establish trade, harass the enemy and protect your trade routes from pirates, but you can’t conquer land territory. Or at least that’s my understanding – I’ve yet to get that far.
05/03/2009 at 19:06 BooleanBob says:
Tim writes well enough not only to hold forth with “What I think”s, but “What I know“s. <3
05/03/2009 at 19:11 D says:
I wonder if the AI improvements that have been mentioned is due to the focus on ranged combat? Maybe for some reason, it is easier to balance?
The AI of Total War has, like others here, been disapointing me since the brilliant Shogun. I’m probably also one of the few that thinks the campaign map has been on a downward glideslope since the first paper version. Personally I’ll wait with this till someone mods in the tiny metal men with swords. Which is probably gonna be around the time Space: Total War is released.
05/03/2009 at 19:26 PaulMorel says:
How does this compare to the relatively recent (and free on GameTap) 18th Century warfare game “Imperial Glory”?
I’ve asked this question beforem but maybe I missed the answer.
Imperial Glory has naval combat and giant campaigns, however, the map only includes Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
I loved that game, but I have a hard time paying $50 for a game that only seems like a moderate improvement over it.
05/03/2009 at 19:27 Ginger Yellow says:
Well, if you believe CA, it’s because they’ve moved to a goal oriented AI system, as opposed to the more rigid “state by state” system used in previous games.
05/03/2009 at 20:18 Pijama says:
It is just me or CA *deliberately* decided to leave South America, Africa and Far East (as in Indonesia and the Malay peninsula, IDK about other places there that had interactions and overtures in the Age of Sail) aside (read: expansion packs)?
Also, brill “Wot I Think” :)
05/03/2009 at 20:34 Noc says:
Totally, Pijama. After building three theatres, resulting in a campaign map that is consistently remarked upon for its tremendous size and scale, CA sneakily and deliberately omitted several sections of the known world for later release.
Crafty folks, aren’t they?
05/03/2009 at 20:43 Dolphan says:
Anyone else find themselves instinctively playing the naval combat like an action game? Taking a ship or two and running around in circles lining up and firing broadsides? It reminded me of Pirates!, which is a good thing, though I doubt it would work very well on larger battles (I had three ships, one of which sank because I forgot about it).
05/03/2009 at 20:44 Funky Badger says:
Wondering what the Medieval era “stands for” now…
05/03/2009 at 21:21 theleif says:
Wonderful game.
But i miss peace treaties and surrenders like the ones you have in the Europa Universalis games. I would much prefer that the territories you occupy where just occupied until you manage to make a peace treaty with the nation in question. And in that peace treaty you could request concessions, like territories, research, vassalisation and so on. This steam rolling is way to simple. Otherwise the game is a beauty.
05/03/2009 at 21:21 Pantsman says:
I’ve just finished reading War and Peace and I have an urge to reenact some Napoleonic battles. I’ve never played any of the Total War games before, but maybe it’s time.
05/03/2009 at 21:25 Medo says:
I do agree with what you say, but you should mention that the game is terribly buggy. The campaign I started crashed when I started a revolution and now I can’t get past that point. If you look on the forum, many people seem to have problem with crashes.
05/03/2009 at 21:43 Pags says:
@Medo: This isn’t meant as a traditional review, it’s Tim’s subjective experiences with the game. Hence it’s name, Wot I Think.
Meaning if Tim didn’t experience any bugs or crashes that you may have had, then there’s no real need for him to mention them.
05/03/2009 at 21:48 clive dunn says:
Here’s my bit of fanboyism. WE LOVE YOU TIM!!!
05/03/2009 at 21:55 Jimmay says:
@ Spanish Technophobe
If you notice, it’s already a problem. There’s no mention of slavery in this game whatsoever, even though the slave trade was at its highest. Sure, in Medieval you could slaughter 3/4 of the population of any town you captured, and it was just a “what if”. As they move closer to the modern age it hits closer and closer to home. CA have hinted they want to move to the 20th century soon, but it’ll be a shame to see a history-based game that whitewashes all the terrible things that came with the move to the modern era.
05/03/2009 at 22:16 CakeAddict says:
The moment it gets released here (which is tomorrow) I’m going to lock myself up in my basement and not come out for a entire week.
I’ve really enjoyed myself with the previous instalment and I think I’ll enjoy this one even more.
05/03/2009 at 22:38 dadioflex says:
Jimmay says:
“Is anyone else foregoing the purchase of this game purely because of the scope of it?”
Not exactly. I’m a completist and when I saw that there was a Special Forces edition, in addition to three special bonus units available from different online retailers, my brain melted. Plus,I’d like the price to drop a bit. May even wait for the Gold edition. By the looks of the economy I won’t be upgrading my PC for a while so I have 2006-2008′s finest games to catch up on.
I have a hankerin’ to go back and play one of the Rome mods though, having finally finished all the M:TW Kingdoms campaigns.
05/03/2009 at 22:50 Lack_26 says:
Scr*w Europe, I’m happy with playing as the Indian faction. Muskets and lots of close-combat… with Elephants. Yes please.
05/03/2009 at 22:53 Rich_P says:
Sad isn’t it? Am I in this boat alone?
Nope. I haven’t purchased GalCiv 2 or EU3 for those reasons. I’d love to start an epic game in either of ‘em, but I haven’t the time these days. Hell, I’m just now diving into Civ IV.
But dammit, Tim’s ETW reports push me ever closer to buying the flippin’ game anyway.
05/03/2009 at 22:58 Taillefer says:
Proposal to developers: Check for an update first thing, and ask if I want to download them as the game is installing, then they’re all ready and waiting. Efficient, see.
Percy is angry at waiting! But I’m trying to ignore him.
Sounds like I’ll enjoy it once I get to play it, though!
(Amazon had it at an excellent £23.96, btw)
05/03/2009 at 23:06 Severian says:
Is anyone else foregoing the purchase of this game purely because of the scope of it?
Sadly, yes. It’s a double-whammy for me. I don’t have the time/patience for long-winded TBS’s anymore (I much prefer Armageddon Empires to Civ or Gal Civ), and I don’t have the energy to figure out how to achieve real-time tactical success (evidence: my lack of interest in anything RTS for decades now).
The funny thing is I used to rail on (to nobody listening, mind you) about what the world needed was an RTS in which army composition for battle was determined by turn-based strategic decisions. And yet, I have utterly avoided the Total War series because of fear and insecurity. I think I loaded up Rome:TW for a day before erasing it in a fit of shame.
Sigh… back to pew-pewing in Defense Grid. Apparently, that’s all my miniature brain can handle.
05/03/2009 at 23:18 Nimic says:
@ Jimmay
Actually, there are mentions of slavery. Sure, you don’t trade in slaves and such, but I distinctly remember the description for some of the improvements (plantations, etc) mention that the workers were mainly slaves and through indenture.
05/03/2009 at 23:20 BobJustBob says:
The context camera does a decent job at this. Hit the insert key (annoyingly it does nothing when the game decides nothing is happening) to get a unit-level view of the action, with multiple perspectives reached by scrolling the mouse wheel and the unit cards clickable to attach to a different unit. During naval battles it likes to stick the camera below decks so you can watch your crew reload the cannons.
05/03/2009 at 23:23 JonFitt says:
@D: “I’m probably also one of the few that thinks the campaign map has been on a downward glideslope since the first paper version.”
I wouldn’t say “downward glideslope”, but I definitely am of two minds on the campaign map. it’s become more and more of a complete game on its own, and a good one at that, but what I really want to do is fight battles!
I liked the upgrade to moveable units because it gave you the ability to decide where and when to fight, but it shifted the game from 70% in battle, to 20% in battle for me. You spend a lot of time manoeuvring units to reinforce and get in position, not to mention the economy and political machinations.
Perhaps rather than “auto-resolve battle” it needs “auto-resolve management”?
05/03/2009 at 23:50 Fumarole says:
I’ve played through to just after the Battle of Bunker Hill. This game is digital sex. I don’t see myself playing anything else for quite some time.
06/03/2009 at 00:00 Tworak says:
I just played it for 7 hours straight without noticing it had been 7 hours… FUCK!
06/03/2009 at 00:01 Andrew says:
Any comparisons to Imperial Glory are, well, very far off the mark. Imperial Glory was terribly basic in comparison to Rome: Total War, let alone Empire.
06/03/2009 at 00:33 Ginger Yellow says:
“The funny thing is I used to rail on (to nobody listening, mind you) about what the world needed was an RTS in which army composition for battle was determined by turn-based strategic decisions.”
Sword of the Stars?
06/03/2009 at 01:06 Gorgeras says:
Question: how bad are the bugs?
All the previous TW games have had them and Medieval 2 took me to breaking point once. So I need to know about Empire.
06/03/2009 at 01:15 Ginger Yellow says:
The only bug I’ve experienced so far, and I’m not 100% certain it is a bug, was when I was sieging a fort. The computer sallied out from a nearby city to lift the siege, but when I got to the battle map, the computer had me deploying inside the fort and all the computer armies attacking it. Weird, but handy for me.
That said, the forums are full of bug reports, as they always are.
06/03/2009 at 02:02 Pijama says:
@Noc – Hehehehe… There was a reason why I placed the asterisks, you know. :)
If it was deliberate, I obviously can’t say. What buggers me is that important places such as South Africa (to be more precise, the Cape ports), Singapore, Batavia and the Dutch East Indies, the La Plata river basin, the great gold mines in Brazil’s interior that were critical in helping Britain kickstart it’s industrial revolution aren’t featured AFAIK.
If you are going for excellence and depth, IMHO, go all the way.
06/03/2009 at 02:11 Kakrafoon says:
Bugs? I’m collecting them with Empire, sort of.
- Sometimes, entire fleets and armies get “stuck”, unable to move. I had to scuttle/disband them.
- AI-controlled Spain asks me, the Prussians, every odd turn to exchange Hanover for Curacao.
- When I played as the Marathas, the other Indians (Mysore? Mughals? Moghuls?) repeatedly sent single units of artillery into my territories; unescorted and, like clockwork, every two turns.
- I cannot switch off the big honking unit banners in the land battles anymore. No matter how often I select “never”, they still stay. Yesterday, they had the grace, at least, to vanish for one or two battles before popping up again, but today.. couldn’t get rid of them.
- Limbering/unlimbering artillery: I don’t want to talk about that subject. I might start crying.
- The “Fire at Will”-Button, in land- AND sea battles. Honestly, do my units even listen to my orders? If that button is off, I want you to hold your fire! No discussions!
And that’s only the top of the bug iceberg for me. I’ll find many more, I’m sure.
06/03/2009 at 03:07 Spanish Technophobe says:
@Jimmay
Yeah, I was over-delicate there; the game is already made, I was thinking, and complaining that it doesn’t represent the horror of the transatlantic slave trade is kind of moot. “INCLUDES SLAVERY!” isn’t the kind of blurb you want on an expansion pack.
That said, I don’t think putting it in a blurb under the Plantation description is enough, and though Total War has never been about accurately describing history’s workings (totally unified Gaul vs. fractured Rome? whaaa?), it seems particularly galling to just leave Africa out of the picture completely when the slave trade was such an important part of the colonization of the Americas.
I don’t want to start a flame war. I just wanted to read it if we’d already had it.
06/03/2009 at 03:41 spacerumsfield says:
I actually miss being able to gobble up a bunch of godless heathens in the early campaign, before facing down a major power. Now, the godless heathens are minor powers and protectorates and such. I think this whole ‘diplomacy’ thing will take a while to get used to
06/03/2009 at 06:17 Frosty840 says:
I am deeply resenting the minor nations’ ability to pump out two new units every bloody turn. Playing as the Mighty Russian Bear (or something :/ ) I am getting my arse handed to me by the Georgians and the Chechens who both decided I need killing, and are sending massive land armies after me all the damn time.
I eventually got round the Chechen army and took their capital, dispanding their forces (No rebels! :D ) and the province makes me a tax income of around a half a unit of cossacks per turn. I feel sure the situation will repeat when I eventually break down Georgia’s walls.
The Total War series’ blatant cheating with the AIs’ economies (They don’t have economies, they just print money and buy more and more units) is probably the series’ most off-putting factor for me, and always has been.
06/03/2009 at 08:19 Jocho says:
One of the coolest features for me this far is that the Swedes speaks Swedish! For you American and British people I can explain how it feels: Imagine having all media you’ve ever consumed being in German – not that you don’t know German, you’re practically speaking it woven in with your English – even the British and American characters speak German, and then suddenly, in one game, the British and American speaks English, that you fully understand! Is it graspable? It’s great!
On the bottom side, I’ve found two annoying bugs, as well: My first battle, against Courland (Baltic states region), ended in waiting for unit after unit to march in from their spawn-point, man by man, to mow then down in a blink of an eye. Another battle, against Poland-Lithuania and Russia, ended with every enemy unit outside the battlefield yet no victory for me. I ran around looking for the last ones for minutes but didn’t find any, choosing to quit the battle and replay it another day.
06/03/2009 at 09:52 Andrew says:
I’ve had one game-breaking bug – selecting my main field army results in a CTD, after about 40 turns of the campaign as Great Britain. Very annoying, and inexplicable.
06/03/2009 at 10:09 Don says:
Well I’m a decade or so into a long campaign as the Indian Mahatra (sp?) faction. It’s enjoyable and is a step up from Medieval 2 in some areas. But I’m disappointed that the AI is still basically braindead on both the tactical and strategic maps. Perhaps for the same reason you still get the impression that the other factions aren’t working towards a set of goals in their own self-interest but exist only to make sure the human player is always at war, preferably from multiple opponents.
And on the plus side I’m rather enjoying the naval battles. Their outcome, assuming you don’t autoresolve, is less influenced by the weakness of the AI as it’s all about who can throw the most metal at the other side so they’re pleasingly unpredictable.
06/03/2009 at 12:46 Gap Gen says:
One thing that annoyed me about Rome in particular was the sprawl in the late game – it took forever to micromanage all your armies moving about what was quite a sparse map. It lost some focus because of it, and became a little repetitive.
It seems like they’ve gone some way towards fixing this with the recruiting-direct-to-armies to prevent having to ferry a few units at a time to the front. Haven’t had a chance to try it yet, so here’s hoping it’s improved.
06/03/2009 at 13:30 Lud_wig says:
Sweepstake on the era CA choose for their next iteration? A dog-eared fiver is on WWI.
It has the technology shift (airplanes, tanks) and it is not too modern. There were plenty of theatres of war with differing tactics and environments. The CA team obviously love their history so when they say they want to do something in the 20thC I suspect their hearts will lead them to the earlier years.
06/03/2009 at 13:59 Nimic says:
@ Kakrafoon
I ran into a couple like that as well. Most annoying was the one where I couldn’t move my fleets. I sat there for a long time trying to figure out why, though obviously it was just a bug all along.
06/03/2009 at 15:07 Jimmay says:
@ dadioflex
I’d STRONGLY recommend Rome: Total Realism, if you can find the full download (I stopped following the community a while back). It was so much fun I stopped playing vanilla R:TW entirely.
@ Nimic & Spanish Technophobe
Yeah, what it comes down to is the fact that it’s just a game, and a damn fun series at that. I haven’t purchased Empire yet, but when I do I really doubt it’ll be ruined by “zomg no slavez!” I’m just really curious how they’d handle European (and American) treatment of Africa and Asia (and other Europeans and Americans) in the 19th and 20th centuries.
06/03/2009 at 16:13 Kakrafoon says:
@ Nimic:
Yes, that’s the thing: Empire is so full of undocumented features – the manual is barely schoolgirl primer calibre and doesn’t help me get to grips with the game at all – that I tend to confuse bugs with regular gameplay elements. I, too, thought that I couldn’t move my trade fleet for a reason, but when I looked closer, my fleet was sharing the trade port with a french flotilla that actually got the benefit from the trade slot. The game had simply phased my fleet out its own reality, or something.
I’m going to play a bit more, but if I continue to find annoying bugs and glitches, I will give it a rest and let the game “mature” a bit, waiting for a patch or two. Patience, I’m told, is a virtue.
06/03/2009 at 16:16 Kakrafoon says:
My current opinion, for now, is this: I respect the sheer scale of the game, but it wouldn’t have hurt to exchange some of that wide-open-awesomeness for a solid amount of polish and fine-tuning. In its current state, Empire is still a work in progress.
06/03/2009 at 16:59 NA333 says:
I’m Loving this game so far. I’ve been playing the world domination grand campaign with the french and ive been doing really great , im about 13 turns in and took about 4 provinces but recently it seems 1 of my largest armies in the Americas is stuck on the border or Niagra, Alqonquin territory, I’ve tried sending anouther army thru the border but it crashes the game with no problem report, I’ts really bugging me.
I’ts a great game ( one of the best I’ve played in awhile despite all the bugs it has ) but we need to wait for a few patch fixes befor it’s properly playable.
06/03/2009 at 19:06 Funky Badger says:
Wondering why Steam’s telling me “This game is unavailable”.
Other than it being a big pile of pants, that is.
06/03/2009 at 19:39 Jhoosier says:
GIVE ME MY DEMO, STEAM!!!! The lack of love for anglophones in Japan is atrocious. At least I’ll go home in two weeks and teach my folks how to buy whatever I want to play.
06/03/2009 at 20:07 moeity says:
I’ve only played a couple battles in this game so far, so I way me way off on alot of what I have to say here, but my first impression of this game is a bit dissapointing – as far as the Napoleonic warfare goes. Around a year ago, I played through Cossacks, and while it wasnt the most polished game, it had a great feel to it and some great features and controls that I miss in E:TW.
The first thing that I miss, and thats annoying me in E:TW is fine unit control. In Cossacks, every inch closer your line was to the enemy’s before your volley was critical because of the inaccuracy of muskets at the time. So by scrolling your mouse wheel, your selected unit(s) would move forward or backward a few steps. On the subject of musket fire, so far it seems like the muskets are super accurate, even at long range. The front line just takes potshots every couple minutes and seem to take someone out almost every time. There doesnt seem to be an option for a whole front-line volley.
Also, is there a way to simply change a units direction without having to drag and reshape the line? This seems very clumsy to me, and frequently takes way too long.
I haven’t gotten to the naval battles yet, so hopefully those are better.
06/03/2009 at 21:29 Obdicut says:
Moeity:
You can move your guys forwards or backwards a few steps. That’s what the arrow keys (on the UI) are for. Lower-right hand corner.
You can change the rotation in the same place, or with the ` and ; keys. (remappable.)
06/03/2009 at 21:50 Autopanda says:
Moeity, the semi-circle of arrows on the right hand side of the battle UI wheels the unit right or left and increases the rank or file of your unit, which is one of the things you are looking for. The other stuff is dependent on the tech tree to learn volley fire, which is why they just seem to shoot randomly. I’m enjoying it far more than Rome as the battles feel more “real” for want of a better term.
07/03/2009 at 00:13 moeity says:
Thanks for the tips guys… I figured I hadn’t played it long enough to pick up all the little details. I never played any of the other TW games so I’m still early in the learning curve. Do either of you know if artillery ever gets the ability to fire grapeshot?
07/03/2009 at 00:37 Kakrafoon says:
Yes. Artillery indeed gets to fire canister rounds. Naval guns get grapeshot, I think. Today, I also saw shrapnel rounds and percussion shells. Mmmmmm. Delicious.
07/03/2009 at 09:52 Don says:
@me
When I said the AI was braindead I was so wrong, should be off its tiny mind on acid. In a recent skirmish 2 musket units of mine had to defend a town against 2 melee units of the opposition. I put one in a building and the other had to stay outside. A unit of enemy swordsmen entered the house and started scrapping whilst the other went after my unit outside.
Eventually my unit routed but what had been going on in the building? Seems the guys had come to some arrangement, my lot were standing around the parapet guns at the ready whilst the swordsmen were standing around amongst them. The other enemy unit, some pikemen, didn’t go in to finish the job, instead they ran round and round the building in try Monty Python style. Since my guys were taking potshots at them they eventually routed after a dozen or so orbits. Since nothing else was going to happen I went to FF and won the battle.
Really disappointing that the game is released in such a buggy state, since it’s taken me only a few hours battlefield play to find many (though none so amusing) similar gltches it shouldn’t have been difficult for CA to find and fix before release.
07/03/2009 at 10:52 myname says:
an inteersting thing is how we relate elements of a game, on how we know that element from other games. Having played the other total war games, the battles and moving of armies on the campaign is easy. But when a diplomatic exchange of technology results in a “fuck you” 97% of the time, i can’t stop from thinking “THAT’s NOT HOW IT’s SUPPOSED TO BE!?? In civilization 4 the goal of all nations was almost to exchange tech – in Empire, it’s to AVOID trading tech – no matter how sweet the deal.
07/03/2009 at 11:10 Andrew Dunn says:
Canister shot is one of the first artillery abilities you can research – that and improved grenades are in the first tier of the tech tree for artillery.
08/03/2009 at 09:39 Don says:
@myname – in Empire, it’s to AVOID trading tech – no matter how sweet the deal
Yep, for all the big talk from CA about how the diplomacy was much smarter and complex it’s just as broken and stupid as the battlefield AI and I can’t discern much difference from previous games. E.g. as the Marathas, I am powerful and rich so Austria offering me a deal of handing over a region to them in return for a trade agreement and a bit of tech is pretty stupid in the first place. But when I reject that deal then making the next offer the same as the first but now I have to pay them some money as well shows how little effort CA have really put into this side of things. It’s not even very difficult, as others have mentioned Civ did a much more convincing job years ago. A side of A4 is all you need to write down an algorithm that would do a far more convincing job so I can only assume CA couldn’t be bothered and just plugged in the random diplomacy generator used in the previous titles.
08/03/2009 at 15:56 Frye says:
What a waste, the stupid AI ruins yet another Total War for me. If anything, the group behavior is even worse than the old games. I enjoy playing it, until i lose a battle, because my men won’t respond properly and usually alt-f4 out of the game in disgust. Shame, because i love everything else about it. The rest rest of the world seems to like it though.
08/03/2009 at 17:19 MrMud says:
Im suprised I havent seen anything about the horrendous AI yet in any of the reviews. There was so much talk about how the AI had been vastly improved over the previous versions but the campaign AI is still rubbish beyond belief. I cant really talk much about the battle AI because in 40 turns I have had a single battle against a force of similar size to mine. Every single other battle has been against small raiding parties of size 1-2 (this is on H and VH campaign diff). In fact in my new game (restarted because it was trivial on H/M) one of the factions keep sending a single unit to attack my well defended fortress every turn. Its still early in the game so I cant afford to auto resolve it as that would make me loose 40 or so units instead of the 0-2 units I loose by leading the battle. Its very frustrating as it takes up lots and lots of time.
08/03/2009 at 18:28 Taillefer says:
Yeah, the AI was my biggest concern, but that was alleviated by the reviews. After a little time with it now, I can see they were just lying. The AI is as bad as it’s ever been. Men of War instead then?
09/03/2009 at 01:37 Behead those who suggest mini-games says:
“Would an optional mini-game be so very wrong?”
YES. Goddammit. A frequent and repetitive mini-game is an unnecessary blemish in any otherwise good game. If I wanted to play a twitch game or a minigame I’d go and play some free flash games, not a strategy title. I don’t want to have to go through a game of Tetris or Space Invaders or some other bizarre mini-game every time I try to do any non-combat actions on the map, such as diplomacy. I’ve seen too many games hampered by these misguided efforts. Fallout 3, Fahrenheit, etc.
Never mind the fact that it is bad enough a bad flash game is jammed inappropriately into the middle of my strategy experience, I’ll end up having to repeat that same crappy puzzle or twitchfest a thousand times over just so I can play one campaign of my strategy game (like those pointless and annoying mini-games in Fallout 3 that add nothing and only waste time, especially when you’ve done them hundreds(!) of times in the course of one play through).
I’d rather developers spent more time on making the AI perform properly and fix the path finding (along with generally finishing, fixing and polishing the game proper) than waste time on adding extra sub-par games that remind me of a program I would have seen printed in an old C64 or Vic20 magazine for me to type out and try. Such games are already widely available in abundance and I don’t want them forced into the middle of the game any more than I want an episode of Teletubbies forced into the middle (especially not the same one a hundred times or more) of The Seven Samurai – or clips from The Seven Samurai slotted into Teletubbies, for that matter.
09/03/2009 at 09:07 Vandell says:
I feel like I wastes my money, to be honest. Medieval II looked and played better than this game. Even on the lowest settings possible, it’s so sluggish and looks absolutely terrible to boot. And my units are idiots that won’t turn around to shoot at enemies.
On the other hand, I love the sea combat.
09/03/2009 at 12:36 Klapperman says:
I have to agree with the other commenters about the buggy shitfest the AI turned out to be. It NEVER defends it artillery meaning that a single unit of light cavelry is usually enough to prevent his cannons of pounding my ranks of militia senseless. Sieges are something to avoid at all costs, just build a bigger army and set to autoresolve, it will spare you the frustration of seeing your own men go Troy on your ass by opening the gates for the enemy.
All in all, the only thing that really improved are the graphics… yes they are shiny… but come on. In a game like this it’s all about the AI, especially considering that they shipped it without working multiplayer!
09/03/2009 at 15:45 Stu says:
The AI is very bad and has some glaring errors that go beyond merely “low skill” into “bugged or broken”. The AI in this game makes mistakes that Civilization avoided in the 90s. A poor effort.
It doesn’t know how to do naval invasions. This means that it is nigh impossible to lose as Britain. You can sit on your island and no one can touch you. I consider this a game breaker. The age of sail and colonialism and CA didn’t bother to make the AI understand naval invasions? After all their hype about the naval aspect? Oh dear.
Similarly, the AI will often have stacks of useless troops on their islands that they can’t utilize as they don’t know how to move them off of the island. I’ve seen islands in the Americas owned by European powers suffer from this in particular.
The AI in sieges will do idiotic things, such as opening the gates, wandering outside the wall and then attempting to climb up your attacking force’s grappling ropes. I can get away with charging people in to the capture zone and not be punished for such recklessness. The siege AI seems as poor as ever, generally.
The AI also seems remarkably reluctant to actually invade even undefended cities, although tiny and weak single region nations seem happy to declare war on huge world powers for no real reason and get themselves instantly stomped. More AI stupidity.
During battles I’ve witnessed the dreaded “continuous army shuffle” from the last few Total War games appear again. The AI will often get confused and continuously reposition and shuffle its units around and around instead of establishing a defensive position or attacking. It will even do this even if I am not moving my army around. Last time I found I could simply move a unit of riflemen around to the flank of his army while it was shuffling and leave them there on “fire at will”. He continued to shuffle all his units around the same spot, moving each unit into the line of fire of my unit and by the time my riflemen ran out of ammo each of his units were down by about 50%.
I’m not expecting Deep Blue level of mastery in every game but when it starts doing stuff like that it feels like I’d get a better game against a cat walking across a keyboard. It’s simply broken.
Upping the difficulty modes doesn’t really work or make the AI more cunning, it just gives it blatant cheats and boosts to the economy and unit strength. Not only does this ruin tactics that the game offers, such as “scorched earth” (because the cheating economy bonuses will roll in for it anyway), it means you can witness the enemy peasants being able to kill your elite units, destroying the game balance while the AI is still just as stupid as before with its superhero mutant armies. Lame. I want difficulty modes that make the AI a more cunning opponent, not just ruin the game balance and break the game even more.
There are plenty more problems, but this will do for now.
09/03/2009 at 15:58 Tupile says:
I wish reviews and reviewers would concentrate more on the AI and gameplay instead of raving about visuals and the latest graphics tweaks. I’m buying a game, not a painting. I want to play it rather than stare at it passively (or mindlessly).
With all the glaring errors in the game I’m wondering why the reviewers fail to mention them or have these faults reflected in their scores instead of the usual “97% – GAMING GOLD!!!! MUST BUY!!!!!” style “sound bites” that the game publishers love so much and print on all the boxes and adverts. Of course a few months later the same reviewers will quite likely pull the usual move of talking about “well-known faults” (that they somehow failed to mention in the reviews) or how the latest “must buy!” expansion somehow fixes a whole bunch of flaws that they didn’t mention in their reviews or reflect with their scores. Nothing more annoying than them handing out perfect scores and rave reviews and then later pretend it never happened and they think the game isn’t all that great after all – AFTER you’ve bought the damned thing. I’ve seen this time and again. Especially when a game ages, a patch comes out, an expansion is on the horizon or a sequel is released. All the faults they somehow failed to mention before now are spoken of as if they are common knowledge or they had always been talking about them.
Great job letting us know about these things in your original reviews too, guys. Pffff. What’s the point in these reviews any more? Useless.
It pretty much defeats the purpose of listening to reviewers if you can’t trust them to give the real truth of the matter until six months later.
09/03/2009 at 17:24 redcoat says:
i think most reviewers never played the game properly at all or long enough to see the errors. they play it for an afternoon or a mini or tutorial campaign at most and write a review based on that. either that or they are just lining their pockets with ad revenue and bribes.
10/03/2009 at 04:07 WEINER SCHENEIDER says:
guys i have a question; can u go in SOUTH AMERICA were brazil and argentina are and it becomes part of the campaign map?
10/03/2009 at 14:11 redcoat says:
i’m enjoying the shitstorm over the dishonest crippling and hiding of the “special forces units” on the discs you buy. it took no time before people found out that all the info to play with them was right there all along and simple modding could put them back in instead of their rip-off. I heard that to get all the “special” units from the various limited offers here and there you’d have to pay $150 or something and gather all the versions together to get a complete set. garbage.
of course now they’re threatening people who simply mod them in instead of paying. looks like the days of modders looking through the discs or installations to find unused material is long gone. heck, this is the first step on the road to barring open modding altogether. they’ll claim it is “ILLEGAL” or some shit. what if i simply mod in similar or identical units i make myself? either they’ll claim that too is “ILLEGAL” or it won’t be long before they bar everyone from it.
this is even worse than the horse armour nonsense. rot in hell, ca.
combining this with the horrible drm, bugs and unfinished products and it’s the dying days of (mainstream) pc gaming. certainly the golden ages are long dead now. for shame. mainstream pc gaming is going down the toilet. if this is what we can expect then i won’t even miss it.
good riddance.
10/03/2009 at 20:45 WEINER SCHENEIDER says:
could any one answer my question?
10/03/2009 at 22:02 Panzeh says:
South America is not modeled as a land region with countries and such, just as a trade area with trade slots for ships.
11/03/2009 at 00:04 David says:
about 1/2 to 1/3 of south america is in the game as a land territory. Mexico to about half way thru brazil.
11/03/2009 at 00:22 David says:
i should clarify that south america is several territories, not just one
12/03/2009 at 22:48 Fumarole says:
I noticed earlier today that Empire is third in current Steam players, behind only Counter-Strike and it’s physics-enabled lovechild. Excellent news.
13/03/2009 at 03:11 TJ says:
Had my first experience yesterday of loading Empire and having steam tell me that ‘steam servers are too busy, try again in a few minutes’! Very frustrating until I worked out how to run steam in offline mode for my campaign. So it may be excellent news that the game is popular on steam servers, but only if they have enough of them! :)
14/03/2009 at 05:06 WEINER SCHENEIDER says:
can u conquer south america??????????????
15/03/2009 at 20:16 Pat C says:
we have a intel dual core 2 Gig processor. The game says you need a 2.4 Is there a way to make this work with the 2.0 G.
16/03/2009 at 04:56 WEINER SCHENEIDER says:
yo pat c can u conquer south america??????????????????????????????????????
16/03/2009 at 04:57 WEINER SCHENEIDER says:
yo pat c can you conquer south america and centarl america????????
20/03/2009 at 20:10 John Malcolm says:
Has anyone else experienced the annoying Steam “pre-load complete” thing? Basically bought, downloaded and played with it on release… then took a rest for a while. Last night when I tried to launch through Steam I was informed that preload was complete and it want’s be to pay again. Steam support thingie opened, but I hear that can take a while. Clientregistryblobbything renamed, steam and system restarted, etc.
08/04/2009 at 17:08 James Chrisman says:
No you cannot conquer South America. Only a few small places around the Caribbean.
And the game crashes when your playing India and it goes into a revolution. I really would like to see what happens next.