Just read about this game and to be honest it looks awesome.
Napoleon: Total War furthers the award-winning franchise with characters and narratives, similar to (though expanded upon) Empire's "Road to Independence" campaign. It will use, thanks to Empire's engine, the system which brought the Total War series success: the turn-based campaign and the real-time battles.
Three new episodic campaigns, encompassing the Italy, Egypt and Europe campaigns, giving objectives, but still the freedom to not have to follow historical events.
Multiplayer: Napoleon features multiple multiplayer modes with many features and numerous online functionalities: Steam achievements, gameplay bonuses, uniform editor and voice communications.
Many Napoleonic battles and advanced weapons to allow for large battles and more options in the campaign.
But since it will mostly focus on Europe I guess that means you can't play as the United States, really wanted to have a campaign as the U.S. but in Empire that is just the Road to Independence, and that is very short. That or the option of a quick battle. Oh well.
Here's hoping that Creative Assembly will make a Total War American Civil War game.
I absolutely loved Medieval 2, but I was highly disappointed at where the franchise was heading with Empire. I'm not paying money to watch two infantry in line formation trade volleys of musket fire. I want to see swords thrusting, spears stabbing, and heavy cavalry in plate charging into the fray.
I watched some of the Empire youtube videos. They looked so terrible, and not to mention, boring!
I agree with Disregard. I really want a remake of Shogun, but I don't think there would be many unique units. Supposedly, most factions in feudal Japan used the same type of units so I read.
OMG I didn't even know this game existed, I have played and enjoyed all of the total war games. Yes, I know, they are basically the same, but they are also well done.
I am really curious as to how battle game play will change with more guns involved. I guess the core will be cannon, gun, ship, and light Calvary (with a bunch of cutsie "gift shop" units as in previous games.
On September 19 2009 15:48 Headlines wrote: I absolutely loved Medieval 2, but I was highly disappointed at where the franchise was heading with Empire. I'm not paying money to watch two infantry in line formation trade volleys of musket fire. I want to see swords thrusting, spears stabbing, and heavy cavalry in plate charging into the fray.
I watched some of the Empire youtube videos. They looked so terrible, and not to mention, boring!
I agree with Disregard. I really want a remake of Shogun, but I don't think there would be many unique units. Supposedly, most factions in feudal Japan used the same type of units so I read.
Bayonets. Calvary. Swords. Empire has it all. I really enjoy the detail that ETW offers when it comes to hand to hand sometimes you see individual fight such as kicking and rolling around on the groud. It just adds depth.
Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
Three Kingdoms: Total War would be the most narrow of all the total wars
Yeah, but that was like a side-invasion. Besides, the Golden Horde was just the westernmost Khanate (out of 4 Khanates). For a Total War game focused on the Mongols, early period would be Mongol unification and expansion, war on the Tatars, campaigns against various Chinese factions. Middle period = conquest of Khwarezm Empire, the Middle East, expansion into Europe and Southern China, war in Russia. Late period = the 4 Khanates and their descendants, war in West Asia.
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
What?! The Napoleonic era was one of the most politically/militarily charged time periods in all of history; encompassing all of Europe, parts of Northern Africa and eventually Russia. It was literally the first World War.
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
What?! The Napoleonic era was one of the most politically/militarily charged time periods in all of history; encompassing all of Europe, parts of Northern Africa and eventually Russia. It was literally the first World War.
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
What?! The Napoleonic era was one of the most politically/militarily charged time periods in all of history; encompassing all of Europe, parts of Northern Africa and eventually Russia. It was literally the first World War.
7 Years War for first World War, imo.
lol good call. Russia even flipped sides to make it seem authentic (jkjkjk)
On February 26 2010 13:52 FragKrag wrote: Three Kingdoms would just be 3 different factions of Chinese fighting against Chinese
At least with Shogun it was a few different factions of Japanese fighting against Japanese which could have contact with Europeans.
Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as "Chinese" people during the Three Kingdoms period, ancient China was extremely diverse geographically and culturally. It was far from "Chinese" vs "Chinese." There was a world of difference between regions back then, all of them with distinct cultures, equipment, ways of fighting, and languages.
The difference between Shu and Wei was just as distinct as the difference between Ancient Greeks and Macedonians, I can tell you that much.
The saddest part is that I remember you as being Taiwanese for some reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are indeed Taiwanese, then shame on you for making such an ignorant statement about your own heritage -_-.
Edit: Mongol: Total War I could totally totally get behind. It could even include India, the Tubo Empire, Khotan and the Tarim Basin region, the old Tangut/Tujue factions, there's tons of diversity there. Central Asia and East Asia could use some serious love from the Total War series.
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Three Kingdoms: Total War would be a million times better than yet another tired ass European war game. There's dozens of those already made. Empire: Total War was the first game in the Total War series that I didn't buy. Napoleon will be the second.
In fact, I don't think I'm buying another Total War game period until they give some of the other theaters of the world more attention. I'm sick of how Eurocentric they've been making everything lately. Medieval was awesome because it had the Turks, Almohads, etc. Rome was awesome because there were Carthaginians, Persians, Greeks, etc. Shogun was awesome for obvious reasons, warrior monks being supreme among them.
Empire and Napoleon is really pushing it with the ridiculous Eurocentrism though. Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo. Half of the fun in Total War was being able to rewrite history with Carthage winning over Rome. Or the Byzantines surviving to reconquer the Western Roman Empire. I don't get a boner thinking about Prussia taking over Europe or England taking over France. I could care less.
What?! The Napoleonic era was one of the most politically/militarily charged time periods in all of history; encompassing all of Europe, parts of Northern Africa and eventually Russia. It was literally the first World War.
A world that doesn't include much of East Asia, SE Asia, Australia, or N/S America is not much of a world... Maybe the Eurocentric world, but tip of North Africa and Russia + Europe is far from inclusive of the world. The first world war was actually WW2.
On February 26 2010 13:52 FragKrag wrote: Three Kingdoms would just be 3 different factions of Chinese fighting against Chinese
At least with Shogun it was a few different factions of Japanese fighting against Japanese which could have contact with Europeans.
Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as "Chinese" people during the Three Kingdoms period, ancient China was extremely diverse geographically and culturally. It was far from "Chinese" vs "Chinese." There was a world of difference between regions back then, all of them with distinct cultures, equipment, ways of fighting, and languages.
The difference between Shu and Wei was just as distinct as the difference between Ancient Greeks and Macedonians, I can tell you that much.
The saddest part is that I remember you as being Taiwanese for some reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are indeed Taiwanese, then shame on you for making such an ignorant statement about your own heritage -_-.
Edit: Mongol: Total War I could totally totally get behind. It could even include India, the Tubo Empire, Khotan and the Tarim Basin region, the old Tangut/Tujue factions, there's tons of diversity there. Central Asia and East Asia could use some serious love from the Total War series.
How does some overglorified story represent my heritage?
Then if you're going to differentiate between different Chinese, why is it so hard to differentiate between Germany and France? Or Austria and France? Or France and England? There are definitely just as many differences, if not more differences between European countries.
Why is it sad that I don't want a bland game based off of a glorified Chinese civil war?
Of course World War 1 was the first world war. There was fighting in Africa, there was fighting in Asia, and there was fighting in Europe. Is that not enough?
On February 26 2010 13:52 FragKrag wrote: Three Kingdoms would just be 3 different factions of Chinese fighting against Chinese
At least with Shogun it was a few different factions of Japanese fighting against Japanese which could have contact with Europeans.
Aside from the fact that there was no such thing as "Chinese" people during the Three Kingdoms period, ancient China was extremely diverse geographically and culturally. It was far from "Chinese" vs "Chinese." There was a world of difference between regions back then, all of them with distinct cultures, equipment, ways of fighting, and languages.
The difference between Shu and Wei was just as distinct as the difference between Ancient Greeks and Macedonians, I can tell you that much.
The saddest part is that I remember you as being Taiwanese for some reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but if you are indeed Taiwanese, then shame on you for making such an ignorant statement about your own heritage -_-.
Edit: Mongol: Total War I could totally totally get behind. It could even include India, the Tubo Empire, Khotan and the Tarim Basin region, the old Tangut/Tujue factions, there's tons of diversity there. Central Asia and East Asia could use some serious love from the Total War series.
How does some overglorified story represent my heritage?
Then if you're going to differentiate between different Chinese, why is it so hard to differentiate between Germany and France? Or Austria and France? Or France and England? There are definitely just as many differences, if not more differences between European countries.
Why is it sad that I don't want a bland game based off of a glorified Chinese civil war?
Of course World War 1 was the first world war. There was fighting in Africa, there was fighting in Asia, and there was fighting in Europe. Is that not enough?
As someone who loves history it appalls me that you are boiling things down to such an elementary level. We could just as easily summarize all things war related as "killing people" and ask why do you want to play a bland game based on killing people? Using that kind of reductionist logic doesn't actually say anything meaningful.
I've given a very clear reason why I think Napoleon:Total War is bland and uninteresting. It's been done a million times before! The Total War series has been set in the same damn Europe map since Medieval: Total War 1. That shit gets old. Especially when it glorifies a time that I find offensive.
Plain and simple, they've made FIVE games set in the European theater. I think it's time for a change of locale. A brilliant one would be East Asia for obvious reasons. It doesn't have to be specifically Three Kingdoms. I could name 20 factions off the top of my head that are in E. Asia that are not at all Han Chinese. The only reason I said Three Kingdoms would be cool is because Three Kingdoms guarantees it would move to a totally different geography.
Not only that but E. Asia works because they had very highly developed military sciences and troop types etc etc. They've got all the raw material necessary to make a fantastic Total War game. Napoleon on the other hand has been done SO SO many times. There are at least a dozen Napoleonic war games I could pick up. And I've played 5 of them already. Some were fun, some weren't. But when I found myself only interested in the dragoon charges and flanking cannon emplacements, I realized that I'm not interested in the gunpowder era fighting whatsoever. And if we're talking medieval era technology, well then one of the best places to set it in would be Asia, including Central Asia, the Eurasian steppe, SE Asia, and the Pacific islands including Japan.
Played the beta, but no fan of Total War. Just played Rome a bit, but this game has the exact same, shitty interface and gameplay -- the series didn't evolve ANYTHING! Well, except for graphics, which is pretty nice but still lowish framerate on max with tons of units on screen. Good music and sound though. Most fun was to play as Swedes or Danish and hear them talk on their local language. Hah!
Damn colonial game industry, they are just a bunch of Caucasian racists... That's the same shit with Sc2. Did you see how they nerfed Protoss in their last Sc2 patch whereas it is the only race with ninjas ? All i see is a bunch of reference to Western European culture: Thor with Arnold voice, Valkyries, Goliath etc... And the SCV guy isn't even black anymore ! The only thing remotely Asian is the Yamato thing but eh Japanese were imperialists too -.- I don't see anything Chinese in all those games... I will stick to SF4 and Chun-Li until Jackie Chan gets hired to dub the Dark Templar.
On February 28 2010 03:53 Boblion wrote: Damn colonial game industry, they are just a bunch of Caucasian racists... That's the same shit with Sc2. Did you see how they nerfed Protoss in their last Sc2 patch whereas it is the only race with ninjas ? All i see is a bunch of reference to Western European culture: Thor with Arnold voice, Valkyries, Goliath etc... And the SCV guy isn't even black anymore ! The only thing remotely Asian is the Yamato thing but eh Japanese were imperialists too -.- I don't see anything Chinese in all those games... I will stick to SF4 and Chun-Li until Jackie Chan gets hired to dub the Dark Templar.
If you enjoy playing the same old reiterations of the same old time periods with a Eurocentric worldview, then go ahead. I'm sure you and Moltkewarding will have lots of fun together. But when it comes to what I spend my money on, I'm going to support products that bring diversity into the marketplace and give my heritage a greater representation, rather than act as if it doesn't exist at all.
Still, I'm not accusing the "game industry" of anything. There's plenty of diversity in the industry. The only thing I ever talked about was the Total War series and how I'm dissatisfied that they've gone 5 games now on the same geography. Your hyperbole is in pretty poor taste.
Nor did I say anybody else should not play Napoleon Total War. I simply stated that I am not going to buy the game and the reasons why. So, in general, I think your snarky response is out of line.
Listen Stork, i don't like Napoleon, i'm not a fan of this period either and i have no problem with you wanting a game on a different "theatre", but the way your are whining in this thread is completly ridiculous and you clearly deserved to be mocked when i see sentences like that coming from someone claiming to know history:
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo.
I just can't understand how you can associate Napoleon with colonialism. He fought all his wars against Europeans nations which actually delayed colonialism because European countries were too busy fighting each others. Afaik the colonization of Africa started long after Napoleon was dead.
On February 27 2010 16:10 StorkHwaiting wrote: [The Total War series has been set in the same damn Europe map since Medieval: Total War 1. That shit gets old. Especially when it glorifies a time that I find offensive.
I hope you have never played any WW2 related game because you can play the evil nazis and Germany and its mighty panzers are glorified too... Nah maybe it is just a game and you are taking this shit too seriously.
I also find amusing that you don't understand that this kind of games appeal mostly to an European audience ( or American people with European background ) and that a game about Medieval wars in China would not be as successful.
On February 28 2010 05:21 Boblion wrote: Listen Stork, i don't like Napoleon, i'm not a fan of this period either but the way your are whining in this thread is completly ridiculous and you clearly deserved to be mocked when i see sentences like that from someone claiming to know history:
On February 26 2010 11:37 StorkHwaiting wrote: Sorry, I don't think there's anything glorious about the Colonial period. That time period can go to hell in a handbasket imo.
I just can't understand how you can associate Napoleon with colonialism. He fought all his wars against Europeans nations which actually delayed colonialism because European countries were too busy fighting each others. Afaik the colonization of Africa started long after Napoleon was dead.
On February 27 2010 16:10 StorkHwaiting wrote: [The Total War series has been set in the same damn Europe map since Medieval: Total War 1. That shit gets old. Especially when it glorifies a time that I find offensive.
I hope you have never any WW2 related game because you can play the evil nazis because Germany and its mighty panzers are glorified too... Nah maybe it is just a game and you are taking this shit too seriously.
I also find amusing that you don't understand that this kind of games appeal mostly to an European audience ( or American people with European background ) and that a game about Medieval wars in China would not be as successful.
I think Napoleon's antics in Egypt are very much in line with what I dislike about Colonialism, but you do make a very good point. My apologies for confusing Napoleon with Colonialism, because you're right, he delayed the progress of Colonialism and I was wrong to correlate the two. He was more along the lines of nationalistic/imperialist fervor.
And yeah, I'm not a big fan of WW2 games either. I USED to be but I've played so damn many of them by now that I just can't bring myself to get excited anymore. It's not me saying that I never want to play one, rather I've played too many of them and I'm tired of the era. Just as people who've played one too many D&D games get really bored of the same Tolkienesque setting.
And that's my original point. I'm disappointed in the Total War series because it continues to be fixated on the European theater. And I especially dislike the gunpowder era, whether it's Colonialist or not.
I don't get why you assume I don't understand these games appeal to a European audience, though. I know full well what they're doing. It doesn't mean I shouldn't be disappointed they're taking that path and personally choose not to buy their game. It's like people complaining that Starcraft 2 is a lot more noob friendly. Blizzard is doing that for the sake of wider appeal, but the hardcore fans have every right to be annoyed that they're getting a game they like less for the sake of the mainstream. And as someone who's shelled out $400 to the Total War series, I think I've got a right to an opinion.
I'm sure you and Moltkewarding will have lots of fun together
We need to get back to Naps.
On the other hand, no one is interested in playing the battle of the pyramids. They want to recreate Jena and Austerlitz. The reason is very simple; there is no honour in besting inferior peoples in battle. On the other hand, playing China in eu2 or Victoria is frustrating because you are marked to fall behind Europe on technology. In EU2 you receive a tech handicap for being non-Christian, and in Victoria you are handicapped by China's status as an uncivilized country. When I played China I always wished that there were an option to become a voluntary colony of Britain.
I'm sure you and Moltkewarding will have lots of fun together
We need to get back to Naps.
On the other hand, no one is interested in playing the battle of the pyramids. They want to recreate Jena and Austerlitz. The reason is very simple; there is no honour in besting inferior peoples in battle. On the other hand, playing China in eu2 or Victoria is frustrating because you are marked to fall behind Europe on technology. In EU2 you receive a tech handicap for being non-Christian, and in Victoria you are handicapped by China's status as an uncivilized country. When I played China I always wished that there were an option to become a voluntary colony of Britain.
lol those are such f-ed up game mechanics -_-. THAT would be an example of in-game propagation of racism in my opinion.
That being said, Moltke I love you for being so consistently you XD.
EPT
(jkjkjk)
