![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Empire: Total War
- Thread starter daveyjwin
- Start date
PoweredBySoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,243
I probably used it incorrectly as a noun, so shoot me.
Canadian in Berlin
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2007
- Messages
- 697
TBH, all their games have AI issues and generally the modding community uses the game as a framework to make something twice as good. Though the original is often "great" already.
I guess I just didn't notice while I was playing. Not saying it isn't true. I have to admit though, that the modding community does some awesome stuff with their games. Rome Total Realism is one of the funnest games I have played.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
I borrowed a friend's steam ID and tried out ETW today on my rig....
ran like butter on my wolfdale 2M + HD4850 +4GB ram
but, the game is a huge letdown so far....
aside from the naval battles, which really aren't *that* great, there really isnt much setting this game apart from the previous TW games... and while i was a fan of the other TW games, it really does seem that Creative Assembly has been stuck in neutral since Rome: TW came out...
definitely not buying this one until massive patching + price drop happen
Brownstone
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 873
Love it so far... but i really suck at naval battles
Anyone got a tip there ? in the end of the battle my fleet is concentrated and my enemies are doing circles blasting the shit out of me
I tried setting sail to keep moving but every time i use the rotate button the ships stop or something and in the end they r all messed up
Anyone got a tip there ? in the end of the battle my fleet is concentrated and my enemies are doing circles blasting the shit out of me
I tried setting sail to keep moving but every time i use the rotate button the ships stop or something and in the end they r all messed up
Michaelius
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,684
Hmm ? I got [email protected] 4 gigs and 4850 and it runs very well on 1920x1200 no aa, rest of settings maxed ? 8800 GTX shouldn't be that much slower.
Hmn I lowered some settings, especially textures, and it became a lot more smooth.
I run 2x AA now too, without AA it looks ugly.
Fun game, love the tactical battles, AI is much better then in previous versions.
You got to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and try to get that aft of you, either on the right or left quarter. Typically ships back then would go right for a while, and then tack (turn) and go left along the same base course. Think of a straight line course at 90 degrees, your actual course is a zig zag down that 90 baseline to where you want to go.
Then you need to learn what the different rates are. If you in a 32, and you find yourself up against anything larger, your going to lose. Typically (as an example) a 32 carried 12 or 18 pounder weapons. A 44 carries (typically) 18 or 24 pounders. That means more weight of shot for the 44 by a factor of 2 to 4. Also, in our example, the ship is made with thicker sidewalls when it is a 44 vs a 32. Therefore, the 32 is going to lose in this fight either way. (Its different with the US frigates, they were Heavy Frigates, which means they were 44 or 38 with one 36 gun frigates built to a unique design and carrying 30 × 24-pounder (11 kg) long gun, 20 × 32-pounder (15 kg) carronade, 2 × 24-pounder (11 kg) bow chasers. It was a seriously heavily armed frigate and is why it is considered a Special Unit in the Game.)
Cannon balls make great big holes in ships, and knock other ships cannons off their mounts (provisionally, see the armament info above.) Chain shot is limited range and takes out only the sails. (Historically thats what the french would do, they wanted to capture the ship instead of sink it) Grape shot is anti personnel shot. (Use this a few times before you board to clear out personnel to make it easier to capture. )
I can win individual fights, and I can win equal fights with te enemy, but if they are bigger than you are, or more, run. Dont fight to the death if your outnumbered, your wasting units.
Fud
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 276
Im doing fine so far...the only glitches i have seen is that my armies have a hard time taking back a port on one side of the greek pin ...and some times the game will take a while to load during enemies movement during new turn. Other than that it works fine, I do have to agree it is harder to get into than MTW2 or RTW but I think its growing on me.
So I don't know if it's a bug or what, but I am doing the Road to Independence campaign and after capturing Fort Niagra and clearing out Fort Duquesne (woot for being from Pittsburgh), it won't let me go in any other zones. No Canada, nothing, so I guess I'm stuck?
PoweredBySoy
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 2,243
Use the Diplomacy panel to make sure you have Military Access to these zones - or you're at war.
Brownstone
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 873
Awsome ! Very informative... thank you !
I have access through the local (blue) indian zones, but I get the 'X' of doom cursor when trying to go anywhere outside them.
GOD'SlittleSERVANT
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
- Messages
- 7,263
Will this game run good with the specs in my sig?
GreenGoose
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2004
- Messages
- 1,716
I've played for about 4 hours. So far I am very underwhelmed. I think the graphics are terrible running with a 4870X2 everything on high. The game play is very boring. Medieval II was way better. I don't get all of these excellent reviews. 
I've played for about 4 hours. So far I am very underwhelmed. I think the graphics are terrible running with a 4870X2 everything on high. The game play is very boring. Medieval II was way better. I don't get all of these excellent reviews.
I don't have the game..just reading alot of reivews and looking at vids on youtube..its a love it or hate it kind of game seems like..the more critical reviews I read point out alot of issues. The campaign map with huge provinces looks 'cartoony' to me. The 'scale' seems 'wrong' somehow. Naval battles look awesome but people complain of being bored with them..gah!
makes me want to go back and buy the expansion for civ4 and call it a day. lol
u guys are scaring me
oh, has anybody gone back to MTW2 after ETW? just curious..I was thinkin of getting mtw2 for 20 bucks..it just looks better to me...
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
after playing ETW, I must say, it has sent *me* running back to MTW2...
ETW has almost nothing new save for a few new layers of complexity, and the more prominent position gunpowder units are given (and of course, the aforementioned naval battles....)
but i'll be goddamned if the campaign AI isn't horribly flawed... still, and the battles seem way, way less exciting without the melee units being the focal point....
and... about your Civ 4 comment.... Civ 4, and all it's expansions rock... ETW has actually simultaneously pushed me back to MTW2 and Civ 4....
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
Downloaded the Empire TW demo from steam. It doesn't run properly. With 1080p selected I get a weird pink fringe at the top of the screen. In 720p, the menus look proper, but once the tutorial starts, the colors are messed up. Looks like an EGA display. Using a fresh xp sp3 with the latest amd drivers. Any ideas ?
If you used rig in your sig you can forget about 1080p. Try 1024x1280 and lower details.
thats all I needed to know..thanks Bruce. for 40 bucks I can get civ4 expansion AND mtw2 cheaper than 50 for etw...that was easy.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
haha yea, i get that alot, plus other factions randomly breaking/forging alliances, and certain factions never, ever straying outside their borders...
AI = fail
Stereophile
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,116
If you used rig in your sig you can forget about 1080p. Try 1024x1280 and lower details.
This rig isn't good enough to display the menu in 1080p ?
I've never tried to launch the tutorial or battle in 1080p. My main problem is it doesn't work at 720p. A screenshot would consist of a lot of yellows, sky blues and 1980s Apple II magenta.
Canadian in Berlin
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2007
- Messages
- 697
I'm personally waiting on a really high quality napoleonic battles mod, which I can guarantee you is coming....
[Observing the advance of the Gordon Highlanders]
Napoleon Bonaparte: Has Wellington nothing to offer me but these Amazons?
Gen. Drouot: [wounded on his horse] The Prussians are in the woods! Blucher is in the woods!
Napoleon Bonaparte: I made one mistake in my life; I should have burned Berlin.
[Observing the advance of the Gordon Highlanders]
Napoleon Bonaparte: Has Wellington nothing to offer me but these Amazons?
Gen. Drouot: [wounded on his horse] The Prussians are in the woods! Blucher is in the woods!
Napoleon Bonaparte: I made one mistake in my life; I should have burned Berlin.
I think ETW is a good to great game, it sufferes from its ambition. Its too big. Sure, britian had colonies around the world, but without a hell of a lot more money and turns per year, its almost impossible to act in the vast areas that Great Britian acted in the 1800's. I think to handle a game this size, it should be one turn equals one month, not one season.
Likewise, the Road to Independence learning campaign. I was playing along, finally getting rolling and it came up and said I was defeated....I ran to long in trying to win, building armies, moving up, building armies, etc.
I think the scope of the game is too big for the current turn settings, and when you get full up can you imagine how long one turn will take with units spread all over the world?
Likewise, the Road to Independence learning campaign. I was playing along, finally getting rolling and it came up and said I was defeated....I ran to long in trying to win, building armies, moving up, building armies, etc.
I think the scope of the game is too big for the current turn settings, and when you get full up can you imagine how long one turn will take with units spread all over the world?
Haven't been able to play much and I think I am going to take my time so i do get frustrated like some of the people here. ME2 was the same way before the first patch. Give it time this game is like a wine it needs to breath before its at its best. I do agree that the scope is pretty large for the amount of turns but i think ETW plays a little faster. You dont have to manage every city so much which I think will keep me playing.
mooseontheloose
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2009
- Messages
- 79
Decided to cancel my pre-order (was delayed for whatever reason).
I've read through this thread and others, and watched a friend play his copy; I think I'll wait. When they announced the time period for ETW I was very excited for the campaign map and other elements from the period, but I had reservations about the actual gameplay. From what I've read and seen, MTW2 seems like a superior experience at this point. Graphics and other things aside, I always felt this engine and gametype favored a focus on melee combat and MTW2's combat was exciting because of this.
ETW's demo, subsequent threads, and watching my friend somewhat confirmed my worries about the enjoyability of playing with lines of troops firing guns at each other. I just don't think it will be as exciting in the long term. The campaign map is probably very fun, but the game is also plagued with a bunch of bugs (ie. Britain is worthless in campaign) which will hopefully be fixed in patches.
Without all the bugs, I probably would have kept my pre-order open but I'm just not excited enough about the gameplay to deal with the bugs at the same time. I'm reinstalling MTW2 because I almost forgot how fun that game was, and hopefully ETW gets some good patches in the next few months.
I've read through this thread and others, and watched a friend play his copy; I think I'll wait. When they announced the time period for ETW I was very excited for the campaign map and other elements from the period, but I had reservations about the actual gameplay. From what I've read and seen, MTW2 seems like a superior experience at this point. Graphics and other things aside, I always felt this engine and gametype favored a focus on melee combat and MTW2's combat was exciting because of this.
ETW's demo, subsequent threads, and watching my friend somewhat confirmed my worries about the enjoyability of playing with lines of troops firing guns at each other. I just don't think it will be as exciting in the long term. The campaign map is probably very fun, but the game is also plagued with a bunch of bugs (ie. Britain is worthless in campaign) which will hopefully be fixed in patches.
Without all the bugs, I probably would have kept my pre-order open but I'm just not excited enough about the gameplay to deal with the bugs at the same time. I'm reinstalling MTW2 because I almost forgot how fun that game was, and hopefully ETW gets some good patches in the next few months.
I was pretty excited about this game, but now that I have it I'm kind of "meh". It doesn't seem to be pulling me in the way Medieval did - can't put my finger on why, but it just isn't. I'll give it some more time, but so far I'm not overwhelmed.
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
combat between mostly gunpowder units CAN be exciting.... i've played a few battles where i had a blast... but most of the time (90%+) you have to fight with the AI to position themselves correctly, and units take an agonizingly long amount of time to respond to a command... to the point where you sometimes have to issue orders twice in order to ensure they are being followed...
if they cleaned up the battle engine, and made the campaign AI worth a damn, i'd actually be willing to buy... I LIKE the TW games... but as of right now, ETW needs some real heavy patching...
I just fought an awesome huge battle.
I was outnumber by twoce as many men, I had around 600 and something and they had 200 as the force that engaged me but 1200 in reinforcements from a town that I was about to attack (I camped outside and these 200 troops attacked me before I had a turn to siege).
However I had artillery and they did not.
It starts out and I have my troops set up on a small hillside with a building behind us where I have one unit of troops inside.
Then I have my artillery set up in front with most covering the left flank (where the 1200 troops come from) and then one facing ahead where the 200 troops come from.
I line up my main line troops in front of the cannons to keep them protected and then station two units of grenaiders to the right flank and put my two units of calvary there as well. I keep my general's troops beside the building and behind the artillery, so they are inspiried by him. Then I move my last units of rangers to the far left flank to keep it protected as well.
What ensues is why artillery can literally make or break your whole battle plan.
The battle starts and I have the cannons firing round shot as the troops make their way toward my lines and when they get into range I unleash canister shot.
They can not take the artillery hardly at all along with my main line of troops (I have both rank firing and advance and fire trained).
They have a lot of calvary units though (Indian missle calvary IIRC) and they harras my far right flank constantly, I end up getting one of my calvary units too far in and they end up routing, but my other one I pulled back and then had my grenadiers lob some nades at them and then fire at them until they routed.
After minutes of them sending line after line at me and my artillery pounding away at their lines over my troops as they also fired volley after volley into them, they couldn't take it and I won.
I saved it and will youtube it after I edit it down.
I was outnumber by twoce as many men, I had around 600 and something and they had 200 as the force that engaged me but 1200 in reinforcements from a town that I was about to attack (I camped outside and these 200 troops attacked me before I had a turn to siege).
However I had artillery and they did not.
It starts out and I have my troops set up on a small hillside with a building behind us where I have one unit of troops inside.
Then I have my artillery set up in front with most covering the left flank (where the 1200 troops come from) and then one facing ahead where the 200 troops come from.
I line up my main line troops in front of the cannons to keep them protected and then station two units of grenaiders to the right flank and put my two units of calvary there as well. I keep my general's troops beside the building and behind the artillery, so they are inspiried by him. Then I move my last units of rangers to the far left flank to keep it protected as well.
What ensues is why artillery can literally make or break your whole battle plan.
The battle starts and I have the cannons firing round shot as the troops make their way toward my lines and when they get into range I unleash canister shot.
They can not take the artillery hardly at all along with my main line of troops (I have both rank firing and advance and fire trained).
They have a lot of calvary units though (Indian missle calvary IIRC) and they harras my far right flank constantly, I end up getting one of my calvary units too far in and they end up routing, but my other one I pulled back and then had my grenadiers lob some nades at them and then fire at them until they routed.
After minutes of them sending line after line at me and my artillery pounding away at their lines over my troops as they also fired volley after volley into them, they couldn't take it and I won.
I saved it and will youtube it after I edit it down.
Wouldn't they have used the cavalry to try to sweep around and attack your cannons? Especially if they had a lot? I mean, from how you describe it, that's what I would try to do - sure you'll lose some cavalry, but if you have enough to "spare" and a larger foot army, wouldn't the loss of the cavalry be worth the victory? I'm not sure if the AI in this game is quite up to handling gunpowder units - or is it programmed to be stupid because that's the tactics they used back then.
That's excatly what they tried, hence why I put a a unit behind them and one on their other flank ( plus my general was back there) and I also had the house with a unit in it covering thier backside.
With the Ranked fire and fire and advance both learned calvary really don't stand much of a chance in a frontal rush on you, a couple of seconds charging and you drop half of them and then after they impact your line they are routing or about to.
With the Ranked fire and fire and advance both learned calvary really don't stand much of a chance in a frontal rush on you, a couple of seconds charging and you drop half of them and then after they impact your line they are routing or about to.
What kind of cannon were they? Were you using canister shot? If so, how did you keep from mowing down your troops with the canister shot if they were in front of the cannon? If they were that other one that fires explosive shells, I can understand that...
Oh, and canister shot is the perfect weapon for massed infantry attackes.