Comments on: A Grander Armée: Napoleon: Total War Announced

By: Orion

Orion — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:34:21 +0000

There is no Sandbox aspect…total shit

By: skylog

skylog — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:02:13 +0000

eh, remake lords of conquest….j/k give me shogun ii

By: The Hammer

The Hammer — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:19:11 +0000

@Jim: Hahahaha.

By: Jim Rossignol

Jim Rossignol — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:09:50 +0000

I was actually at the Brian Blessed recording sessions for Alexander.

He took great delight in saying “GORDON FREEMAN’S ALIVE?” for PC Zone’s coverdisk.

By: simonkaye

simonkaye — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 08:03:47 +0000

Sorry to dig this up again, but I have to broadcast this –

Nobody told me that Brian Blessed presides over Rome: Alexander’s historical battles!

Rome is promoted to best TW ever.

By: Scundoo

Scundoo — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:03:51 +0000

Sonsonofapreach…: attmempt[sic] to convey the worth of subtley[sic] and balance in argument

Mate, really, you are hilarious. You compare Napoleon with Hitler and then you have the nerve to speak about subtlety and balance.

Sonsonofapreach…:your paragraph which attacked my recycling of clichés which you yourself committed.

Nope, I didn’t post any clichés, and neither did you for that matter; comparing Napoleon with Hitler is just so embarrassingly stupid, there aren’t enough people with the necessary lack in intellect to actualy believe and post such nonsense often enough for it to turn into a cliché.

I am done with this conversation, the level of discourse here is appalling.

By: bookworm8at

bookworm8at — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:53:58 +0000

Game stripped down to sell extra content, bad AI, and now an early sequel. This franchise is not for me.

By: Sonsonofapreachermon

Sonsonofapreachermon — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:12:23 +0000

Mate, I’m not really into proving that things are definitley right or wrong, as they rarley are. My “gibberish” was an attmempt to convey the worth of subtley and balance in argument and repsond to your attacking my intellect and percieved apologising for Brtiain’s Imperial past, but seeing as you’re so persistent the book is Napoleon’s Wars by Charles Esdaile, and there’s about sixty pages of a chapter in there that deals precisley with Amiens, its beginnings and its eventual ending by Britain and various historians views on this and what it means to the reputation of Britain and Napoleon. Give that a read if you are genuinley interested as to another interpretation and not, as I suspect, simply being pathetically snide and condesceding for no apparent reason.

By: scundoo

scundoo — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:49:49 +0000

Maybe that REALLY BIG book with its so persuasive arguments (the title of which you didn’t even mention) has the answer there for you. Or maybe they don’t deal with the subject at all, and like you would rather avoid this annoying detail, since it puts quite a dent in their theory.

By: scundoo

scundoo — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:45:26 +0000

@Sonofapreach…

All that gibberish and you still didn’t answer my question.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:10:45 +0000

Aww man, same old WW1 cliches.

1) The Germans are the baddies. They not only acted like massive jerks, thereby starting the arms race but they started the war quite deliberately. Then of course there is their lack of democracy, stomping over neutrality, various war crimes in Belgium, ethnic cleansing in Poland and the East etc. They used gas first, they used flamethrowers first etc. They’re not Nazi’s but they’re not all that nice either.
2) WW1 is not just the Western Front. You have the war in Africa, in the Balkans, in the Alps, in the East, in the Far East, in the Middle East, in Central Asia etc. Everything from open mountain combat to guerilla warfare in the desert to commando raids to naval landings.
3) If you include the Eastern campaigns that resulted from the Tsarist Empire’s collapse (so 1917-21) then you have warfare that stretched from Poland to Mongolia, from the Baltic to Afghanistan. Most of it open, featuring cool stuff like armoured trains, the rise of the Bolsheviks, Mongolian hordes etc.
4) Trench warfare only applies on the Western front from 1915-1917. Both 1914 and 1918 are largely fought in the open (and both years have far more casualties than any of the trench war years).
5) Trench warfare was not just dumb slaughter. The Generals were not idiots. British bite and hold operations proved very effective for instance. There was continuous tactical and technological innovations. The big question is, if it was so dumb then why did the Allies win and not the Central Powers?

However WW1: Total War wouldn’t work anyway. Total War relies on tactical battles on a big field where you can see and command everyone. WW1 battles were so large that they stretched for miles at a time, including hundreds of thousands of men, vehicles, planes and tanks. There is just no way you could command that. The same goes for WW2. Then again Total War has never been that realistic anyway…

Napoleon looks intriguing, though I’m still waiting for Empire to be fixed before I buy it, but surely Napoleon lost in both Egypt and Russia…

By: Sonsonofapreachermon

Sonsonofapreachermon — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:31:10 +0000

Didn’t know who she was, but I can now confirm I am indeed Summer Glau and just didn’t realise it before. Hi Fans!