The actual Empire: Total War thread

[CSL]

I think that might be the level of firelock-armed citizenry will spawn as a garrison when you attack.

[Benhur]

Towns have the little yellow bars showing how full they are of troops. Sometimes the bottom of the yellow bar has a gray section. What does that mean?

The grey bars indicte the number of town guard that city has. Town guards are usually made up of lesser-quality troops, but it also means you don't have to leave a huge garrison or regular army soldiers to defend some of the interior cities.

As far as naming my units goes, I give them unique names once they gain two levels of experience. So the 9th Infantry Regiment of Foot becomes 9th Foot "The Bloody Ninth" or something like that. It adds to the drama when I go into battle with a group of guys who have earned a regimental nickname and they lay waste to everything in their path.

[Sepiche]

Never is a strong word. It would be more accurate to say that they hardly ever get picked up. But that is still a problem.
I've played for a about 60 hours so far and have never seen any AI troops on a ship. You're right, never is pretty strong as it may happen sometimes, but I've never seen it myself. :)

[Sepiche]

As far as naming my units goes, I give them unique names once they gain two levels of experience. So the 9th Infantry Regiment of Foot becomes 9th Foot "The Bloody Ninth" or something like that. It adds to the drama when I go into battle with a group of guys who have earned a regimental nickname and they lay waste to everything in their path.
haha I do the same thing. I try to keep an eye on which units take the brunt of the fighting or make note of any units that excel in battle and give them names. You're right, it adds a lot of fun and flavor.

[UncleSmoothie]

This chap over at SA conducted an experiment to see if the AI would ever mount a seaborne invasion.

They didn't (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=2838143&pagenumber=79#post357833474).

[zengonzo]

That's hilarious and disappointing ..

Conclusion: your islands are your moon base. If you own an island, AI can never beat you.

So what the hell? How can you conceivably have a battle for control of the New World if there's nobody willing to send a boat over?

[schurem]

bugs will be fixed, be shure. in two weeks, release will be made. be shure of this.

bonus points for the poster who knows what is referenced obliquely in the above line :D

[Enidigm]

You is wrong. Be sure. FW 190 cockpit perfect.

[schurem]

Score! hole in one!

[Sepiche]

That's hilarious and disappointing ..



So what the hell? How can you conceivably have a battle for control of the New World if there's nobody willing to send a boat over?
Yeah it's a bit disappointing, but I'm hopeful it will be fixed in next weeks patch. It is easier to ignore if you play one of the eastern European land powers though. I've been playing a long game as Russia, and I barely noticed they didn't transport troops until I started a game as France.

[UncleSmoothie]

I'm never the guy that does this, but how did the reviewers handing out 90%+ scores for this game not notice the lack of seaborne invasions? As Zengonzo points out above, this pretty much deep sixes the race to colonize India and America that is ostensibly the whole underlying conceit for the game.

[Sarkus]

I'm never the guy that does this, but how did the reviewers handing out 90%+ scores for this game not notice the lack of seaborne invasions? As Zengonzo points out above, this pretty much deep sixes the race to colonize India and America that is ostensibly the whole underlying conceit for the game.

The America's are already colonized in the timeframe of the game so it probably doesn't stand out. I don't know why they missed it, though.

[Njal]

So that's why the French garrison in the New France was so small. Oh well ... waits for a patch.

[mk56]

So is anyone else getting the white screen crash to desktop? I have had 2 long campaigns pretty much ruined. It happens when I hit the end turn button.

This is all since the latest patch btw, before that I had no problems.

[flyinj]

I've definitely seen the French attack me as England across the channel.

I distinctly remember it because I attacked one of their fleets, and they killed mine. They then proceeded to drop troops off and march them to London.

Or are we just talking about the islands in the Caribbean?

[UncleSmoothie]

I've definitely seen the French attack me as England across the channel.

I distinctly remember it because I attacked one of their fleets, and they killed mine. They then proceeded to drop troops off and march them to London.

Or are we just talking about the islands in the Caribbean?

I'm personally talking about any movement of troops via ship - I've never personally seen it done by the AI and your post is the first I've heard of it in various forums, flyinj.

[Thrag]

It seems to me like there might be some scripted things in the start of campaigns.

I started a campaign as the Maratha empire. There was a small mogul army that started near one of my walled cities. Even though I had more troops in the city and there was another city without walls and with a smaller garrison nearby, this small stack of four units attacked me. I defeated the attack. Next turn the remnants of that same army attack me again. Even when the only unit left was the general, it kept attacking my city (which amounted to loading the battle, and then seeing the battle won screen since the enemy had no units capable of scaling the walls the battle ended the very second it begin).

Either that's some absolutely terrible AI, or that stack was scripted to attack that city.

[flyinj]

I'm personally talking about any movement of troops via ship - I've never personally seen it done by the AI and your post is the first I've heard of it in various forums, flyinj.

Interesting... I never saw the enemy AI ever invade by sea before or since (and didn't really think about it until it was brought up in this thread). Maybe I triggered something by attacking the fleet?

[Thrag]

I've definitely seen the French attack me as England across the channel.

I distinctly remember it because I attacked one of their fleets, and they killed mine. They then proceeded to drop troops off and march them to London.

Or are we just talking about the islands in the Caribbean?

Did that happen at the start of a campaign, or sometime much later in the game? I wouldn't be surprised if France started with that army already in the boats.

[UncleSmoothie]

I wouldn't be surprised if France started with that army already in the boats.

Me neither. I've put the game away until there's enough mods and patches to make ETW live up to its promise.

Speaking of, check out this mod that adds realistic smoke and drum & fife music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9qyZDrx1ww

[Therlun]

Either that's some absolutely terrible AI, or

Bummer.
And here I was thinking CA would keep their promise of improving the AI this time... like they said they would for the last 6 games and expansions.

[Cubit]

Bummer.
And here I was thinking CA would keep their promise of improving the AI this time... like they said they would for the last 6 games and expansions.

well, it sounds like the strategic ai is better than the previous games, just not as good as it needs to be.

[Sepiche]

To be fair, I think the AI is going to turn out to be great, and it does a lot fairly well currently. The foundation is there for a good system, but there are just some key bugs that are occasionally messing up the AI at the moment.

Given all the promoting they did of the AI you'd think they'd test it out a bit better before it went out the door though. I'd hate to be the guy they put in charge of the AI for this release right now. :)

[Calistas]

I am going to have to get better with ships or my Barbary States AAR will be short!

Also, they start with no researchers or colleges. If I capture a college province I can overcome this issue, right?

[Sepiche]

I am going to have to get better with ships or my Barbary States AAR will be short!

Also, they start with no researchers or colleges. If I capture a college province I can overcome this issue, right?
I would imagine unless there's something specific in the code that keep the pirates from doing that. You should also be able to build one in a town slot if you get a new one or you tear one down.

[NuclearWinter]

For what it's worth, one of the CA guys posted this on the official forums today:

Please have faith in us. The campaign AI team are fixing invasions and other issues. The battle team is fixing fort pathfinding and naval avoidance and boarding etc. The sound team are fixing sound issues and the graphics team are fixing display issues. We've fixed the video problems. We do have a presence on these boards contrary to what has been said. I have posted a number of times.

This isn't the Medieval II team, this is the Empire team and we'll deliver patches via steam quicker than for any previous total war game. Yes we recognise steam has created it's fair share of problems for some people but one great advantage of steam is we can get fixes to you much quicker.
I can't give you a list of every fix that's been done, because I don't have a definitive list, that is forthcoming.

[Sepiche]

For what it's worth, one of the CA guys posted this on the official forums today:
Thanks, thats good news. And man... the Empire team doesn't seem to have a good opinion of the Medieval team huh? :)

[schurem]

lol and with good reason.

I'm having trouble with the societal impact of some of the new technologies my gentlemen tinkered up in their fancy colleges. My people are 'clamoring for change' and resenting industrialisation. I already am a republic, so not much positive change possible there. taxes are low, especially for the lower classes. What can i do to make my people accept these newfangled ideas and technologies?

[Enidigm]

Keep them drunk.

[Calistas]

I would imagine unless there's something specific in the code that keep the pirates from doing that. You should also be able to build one in a town slot if you get a new one or you tear one down.

There is nothing sciency in my towns and my provinces have mines and farms. I don't think this let's me start researching?

An is it true that if your ships have a soldier unit or two with them they get extra troops during boarding actions?

[ydejin]

Anyone else running into bugs with this game? I've got an annoying sound bug where the weapons sounds seem to cut out midway through battles.

What's even worse though is my save games get corrupted. I saved the game right after a major battle and now it crashes when I try to load it. I had corrupted save games last night too. I've probably had about 3 game saves end up corrupted so far. Anyone know where the game saves are stored? I can't find them. What's also weird is that the dates are all off. Looks like the game might be using GMT time on the game saves.

I read somewhere that running it in XP compatibility mode might help, but I purchased the game through Steam, so I'm not really sure if it's even possible to switch to XP compatibility -- I presume even if I setup Steam to start in XP mode, it might very well fork off ETW as a regular Vista game.

[flyinj]

Did that happen at the start of a campaign, or sometime much later in the game? I wouldn't be surprised if France started with that army already in the boats.

Right at the beginning. I was trying a campaign where I went for France right away.

This is such a funny bug to miss in QA. It would be blatantly easy to recognize... especially given the fact that India has zero European powers in the beginning of the game. This means that no AI ever had armies in India... and they never realized it!

[Sepiche]

There is nothing sciency in my towns and my provinces have mines and farms. I don't think this let's me start researching?
I just checked their starting land in my game. Looks like they don't start with any towns, but they do have a few villages. If you can grow one of those into a town you should be able to build a school there.

[Thrag]

So I got home tonight and decided to play another turn of my Maratha campaign, even though I know that without invasions by sea it will probably get boring once I crush the Moguls. I end the current turn where my rake had successfully spied on something and I get the "trait gained" message. Turns out my rake got a new helper, the text describing this new colleague was:

"Sometimes even monkeys have secrets."

It made me happy.

[Thrag]

I've got an annoying sound bug where the weapons sounds seem to cut out midway through battles.

It seems that whenever I speed up time in battles the sound and music becomes incredibly quiet and stays that way for the rest of the battle even after I return time to normal.

Edit: Checking this out again in game I can't reproduce it right now. But I'm sure I've had battles where sound doesn't come back after returning to normal time.

[Aeon221]

Right at the beginning. I was trying a campaign where I went for France right away.

This is such a funny bug to miss in QA. It would be blatantly easy to recognize... especially given the fact that India has zero European powers in the beginning of the game. This means that no AI ever had armies in India... and they never realized it!

I can't imagine shipping troops to India from Europe. Whenever I get the urge, I just buy a seaside province off of somebody (Goa and Ceylon are good picks).

Then again, I did recently shift an army from America to Europe. It took so many turns for the fleet to show that I had forgotten about it.


I find it very silly also that cavalry can charge straight into a square (or a line from the front) disrupting it; although at least cavalry will take lots of damage doing this. Untrained horses were simply not willing to throw themselves onto a hedge of bayonets no matter the intention of the rider.

You left out a key word. Trained ones were, and did. source (http://books.google.com/books?id=jxqdnKQrAmEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=art+of+warfare+in+the+age+of+napoleon+gunther+r othenberg#PPP4,M1)

I keep getting this dragoon issue, where if I try to remount them after a dismount, the entire unit becomes frozen and won't comply with any orders until (I'm speculating), under attrition one particular guy dies and the whole unit is freed up again.

I think it might happen when you have more dudes than horses. I had the same problem after I dismounted some dragoons and they lost a few horses to cannon fire.

[UncleSmoothie]

Anyone else running into bugs with this game?

I have this funny inkling that you haven't read any of the last 10 or so pages of this thread. :)

Please have faith in us.

This kind of broke my heart. I'm also just back from the bar, so YMMV. I really do think there's a superb game in ETW that just needs an AI overhaul to present itself. Looking forward to the next patch.

[Sarkus]

For all the bitching about the problems the game has, the sad part is that it is possible that CA isn't to blame but rather Sega is for forcing them to ship before it was ready (Sega owns CA and needs a hit on the books). In that sense CA is probably doing their best to fix things now, but it's not an ideal scenario.

I'm still having fun with the game as shipped, though, so I'm fine with waiting for a few patches to see how things shape up. And since they've already released at least two updates via Steam and another is promised for next week, I think we can trust that they are serious.

[ydejin]

It seems that whenever I speed up time in battles the sound and music becomes incredibly quiet and stays that way for the rest of the battle even after I return time to normal.

Edit: Checking this out again in game I can't reproduce it right now. But I'm sure I've had battles where sound doesn't come back after returning to normal time.
That's in Thrag. It seems to be related to changing the game speed during battle. Thanks.

[flyinj]

For all the bitching about the problems the game has, the sad part is that it is possible that CA isn't to blame but rather Sega is for forcing them to ship before it was ready (Sega owns CA and needs a hit on the books). In that sense CA is probably doing their best to fix things now, but it's not an ideal scenario.

I'm still having fun with the game as shipped, though, so I'm fine with waiting for a few patches to see how things shape up. And since they've already released at least two updates via Steam and another is promised for next week, I think we can trust that they are serious.

I'd buy that if every single iteration of the Total War series wasn't a buggy mess at release.

I would go so far to say that this is one of the most stable games they've put out, for me at least. Other than the whole AI ignores half the map thing.

[Calistas]

I installed the smoke mid and it's ok. What is interesting is that I seem to be getting far, far fewer crashes now. Perhaps unpacking the main.pak has helped?

[schurem]

i wouldnt be surprised, lookin forward to hearing the drum and fife as my men march out to their doom :D

[Calistas]

Damn, playing as the Barbary states is hard! Finally got research going by capturing Naples, but with a grand total of only 6 or so units buildable I am not sure it will do me much good. No arty for starters and my fleets are restricted to galleys and whatever I can steal. Damn.

I don't mind that, but it's not like these units are cheap to maintain and I can't exactly afford lots of them. Further, I have many small enemies to deal with, gah! Hmm I will try to gift them friendly and then sue for peace. Still don't know how I will solve my army problem, I thought if I captured somewhere like Naples I would be able to start building line infantry etc. :/

[strategy]

You left out a key word. Trained ones were, and did. source (http://books.google.com/books?id=jxqdnKQrAmEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=art+of+warfare+in+the+age+of+napoleon+gunther+r othenberg#PPP4,M1)


Sure - trained horses could charge into infantry frontally. They just rarely did, because doing so was a death sentence for the horse and rider - and even if the horse was not capable of seeing that, the rider surely was.

It's the same reason that infantry charges were difficult to carry home (unlike in the game, were even citizenry will happily charge). Most normal people are not at all eager to die. Getting soldiers to put themselves into situations where they might die is the reason for the cadaver discipline of the time, why many nations didn't actually allow their soldiers to kneel for "rank fire" as done in the game, and why units that were intended to charge were occasionally not even allowed to load their musket.


I wish they had implemented the melee stuff in the game so that units ordered to charge would take a morale test for every casaulty they suffer while closing with the enemy and abort their charge if they failed one of those tests. It would, I think, have made for a more subtle as well as more "realistic" (whatever that means) combat model.

[Lake]

Anyone else running into bugs with this game? I've got an annoying sound bug where the weapons sounds seem to cut out midway through battles.

What's even worse though is my save games get corrupted. I saved the game right after a major battle and now it crashes when I try to load it. I had corrupted save games last night too. I've probably had about 3 game saves end up corrupted so far. Anyone know where the game saves are stored? I can't find them. What's also weird is that the dates are all off. Looks like the game might be using GMT time on the game saves.

I read somewhere that running it in XP compatibility mode might help, but I purchased the game through Steam, so I'm not really sure if it's even possible to switch to XP compatibility -- I presume even if I setup Steam to start in XP mode, it might very well fork off ETW as a regular Vista game.

I have run into that save game crash often. To help alleviate the problem, I manually save every turn. When the game crashes, I delete the auto save and reload a previous turn. Two turns back usually works.

For 64 bit Vista, turn off hidden folders and save games are in C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\The Creative Assembly\Empire\save_games

You can go into your Steam folder, create a shortcut for Empire.exe and set compatibility mode. Do not run Steam first and start the game from the shortcut.

[Aeon221]

I wish they had implemented the melee stuff in the game so that units ordered to charge would take a morale test for every casaulty they suffer while closing with the enemy and abort their charge if they failed one of those tests. It would, I think, have made for a more subtle as well as more "realistic" (whatever that means) combat model.

That's already in the game.

[Grifman]

A musket wasn't as theoretically inaccurate as often thought, particularly at the short ranges a ball would actually travel - and the move to rifled muskets in the American Civil War produced a suprisingly small increase in lethality.

I would disagree. Almost every historian I've read said that the changes from musket to rifle was profound. Civil war generals were trained in Napoleonic tactics but rifle fire tore up assaulting columns that would have worked under Napoleon. Though the generals seemed slow to learn, by middle of the war troops instinctively threw up breastworks and other temporary fortifications, knowing the deadliness of rifle fire. And the fighting around Peterburg in the 1864/65 more resembled WW1 trench warfare than Napoleonic warfare.

[Aeon221]

That's all well and good but I've got any number of other creditable sources that say otherwise and agree with the original poster. So who's right? :)

Your sources say that a French infantry square didn't break due to a cavalry attack at Garciaz Hernandez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garcia_Hernandez) in 1812? Do they also say that period armies didn't include cavalry as around twenty percent of their forces?

Because I'd be fascinated to see such sources.

[Grifman]

I find it very silly also that cavalry can charge straight into a square (or a line from the front) disrupting it; although at least cavalry will take lots of damage doing this. Untrained horses were simply not willing to throw themselves onto a hedge of bayonets no matter the intention of the rider.


You left out a key word. Trained ones were, and did. source (http://books.google.com/books?id=jxqdnKQrAmEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=art+of+warfare+in+the+age+of+napoleon+gunther+r othenberg#PPP4,M1)

Really? Every source that I've ever read on the subject says otherswise. I tried browsing your link but the only reference to cavalry tactics that I could find said that though Napoleon used large cavalry masses, he knew they could not break unshaken and supported infantry. That doesn't sound like they were successful at charging massed infantry bayonets. (page 142)

If he does say this elsewhere, I'd be interested in reading it because it contradicts everything I've read up to this point.

Sorry about deleting the previous post you just responded to, I wanted to change it and you caught me in the midst.

[Grifman]

Your sources say that a French infantry square didn't break due to a cavalry attack at Garciaz Hernandez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Garcia_Hernandez) in 1812? Do they also say that period armies didn't include cavalry as around twenty percent of their forces?

Actually, my source (John Keegan) does mention this and your wiki citation does not prove your point:

1) First off it notes that the breaking of the square was "unusual". That hardly seems to say that horses would regularly charge headlong into bayonets.

2) Secondly, the first breaking of the square occurred when a mortally wounded horse with a dead rider charged headlong into the square, making an opening through which the charging cavalry poured. No evidence there of charging into bayonets, unless you intend to say that every horse was not only trained, but mortally wounded and carrying a dead rider :)

3) Thirdly, the second breaking occurred when the infantry they charged were shaken because of what happened to the first square, flinched, broke and ran. That doesn't seem to support your assertion either.

These all seem to be unusual circumstances, not normal by any means. To say that this is evidence that trained horses would charge headlong into massed infantry bayonets doesn't seem reasonable.

Because I'd be fascinated to see such sources.

Maybe you need to read your own sources first before looking at my sources :)

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Really? Every source that I've ever read on the subject says otherswise. I tried browsing your link but the only reference to cavalry tactics that I could find said that though Napoleon used large cavalry masses, he knew they could not break unshaken and supported infantry. That doesn't sound like they were successful at charging massed infantry bayonets. (page 142)

If he does say this elsewhere, I'd be interested in reading it because it contradicts everything I've read up to this point.

Sorry about deleting the previous post you just responded to, I wanted to change it and you caught me in the midst.

Page 70 of that book has a few paragraphs on the strengths and weaknesses of cavalry, and it's not shocking stuff. It suggests, unsurprisingly, that a square that had lost its cohesion was especially vulnerable to cavalry assault and that cavalry was best used at the flank and rear of the enemy.

Troy

[Naeblis]

I'd buy that if every single iteration of the Total War series wasn't a buggy mess at release.

I would go so far to say that this is one of the most stable games they've put out, for me at least. Other than the whole AI ignores half the map thing.

Being fair, almost every strategy game with certain scope/complexity is released before it should be, always mandated by the publisher. Few gaming companies can be like Blizzard or id, who release their games "when it's done". Less in the strategy genre.

And while it's true that every TW had their share of problems are release, i wouldn't call it "a buggy mess". Because i have played other games that were truly a buggy mess, and the TW are in comparison a smooth experience.

[Aeon221]

Actually, my source (John Keegan) does mention this and your wiki citation does not prove your point:

1) First off it notes that the breaking of the square was "unusual". That hardly seems to say that horses would regularly charge headlong into bayonets.

2) Secondly, the first breaking of the square occurred when a mortally wounded horse with a dead rider charged headlong into the square, making an opening through which the charging cavalry poured.

3) Thirdly, the second breaking occurred when the infantry they charged were shaken because of what happened to the first square, flinched, broke and ran.

These all seem to be unusual circumstances, not normal by any means. To say that this is evidence that trained horses would charge headlong into massed infantry bayonets doesn't seem reasonable.

At no point did I declare it was a usual circumstance for infantry squares to break, so I'm not sure what you're arguing. My assertion was that trained horses could, and did, charge fixed bayonets. So I picked some of the best period infantry, those of the French, and selected a battle where their squares broke due to a cavalry charge.

Garcia Hernandez proves beyond a doubt that trained horses were willing to charge bayonets. Whether riders were willing to sacrifice said horses -- generally they weren't -- and whether these charges were successful -- generally they weren't -- is another matter entirely.

[strategy]

That's already in the game.

If so, where?

Yes - units can of course rout when charging into melee, but there is no discernable morale difference between a unit charging into melee and one firing at your troops at maximum range. The problem, at least as far as what the historical sources tell us - was that troops were firstly rather unenthusiastic about going into melee in the first place (going into melee was something one did when the combat was won and one was sure the opponent would run... preferably not before) and secondly that troops with musket were much more likely to stop and fire their muskets (and begin reloading) once they got close to the enemy, rather than carry the charge home.

In Empire:TW, units told to charge will always carry home the charge if they are not routed. There is a big difference.


Re: Cavalry charging a square - yes, horses would charge a square (or a line of men). Very, very few horses - even those trained for it - would ever charge into the bayonets. The usual result of a charge against a square or infantry line by trained cavalry seems to have been that the cavalry would pull up a few metres away from the square and unload their carbines/pistols.

Garcia Hernandez is in fact a pretty perfect example of the "horses do not charge into massed infantry" statement, because it shows the dramatic effect one dead horse crashing into an infantry square had. If horses were stupid creatures (i.e., ones that could easily be convinced to charge into bayonets), then infantry squares would not have been a particularly effective form of defense.

[Sarkus]

It seems like you guys are not debating realism but rather the level of control the player has in the game. The tactics are your decision, and if you as the general tell a unit to charge, then they will charge, though they may be routed and/or suffer heavy casualties as a result. So is it the game's fault that the troops follow your orders? Or would you rather that the game take that power away from you?

This comes down to something that has already been said: the TW games are not realistic grognard level sims so expecting that from them (at least the vanilla release) is unrealistic.

[ydejin]

I have run into that save game crash often. To help alleviate the problem, I manually save every turn. When the game crashes, I delete the auto save and reload a previous turn. Two turns back usually works.

For 64 bit Vista, turn off hidden folders and save games are in C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\The Creative Assembly\Empire\save_games

You can go into your Steam folder, create a shortcut for Empire.exe and set compatibility mode. Do not run Steam first and start the game from the shortcut.
Thanks Lake. I didn't notice anyone running into the save game crash out on the official tech support form. I wonder if the save game crash is a Steam-only issue.

[copet]

Sometimes my exhausted calvary doesn't listen to me, and "CHARGE!" seems more like "trot at the enemy and brandish your sword!"

[Naeblis]

It seems like you guys are not debating realism but rather the level of control the player has in the game. The tactics are your decision, and if you as the general tell a unit to charge, then they will charge, though they may be routed and/or suffer heavy casualties as a result. So is it the game's fault that the troops follow your orders? Or would you rather that the game take that power away from you?

This comes down to something that has already been said: the TW games are not realistic grognard level sims so expecting that from them (at least the vanilla release) is unrealistic.

Good point. TW isn't a simulation of the commander or general in an historical battle. It's more like you ARE every sargeant of every unit in the battlefield. Yeah, it's not realistic, even if the game is based in realism in other suff. There is no communication delay, or people who question your orders, etc.

This remembers me the complaints in another game, a squal level (1-6 soldiers) tactical game, people whined about the bad pathfinding of your units. Lol! There wasn't any pathfinding, you had to kcontrol everything of that little group of soldiers (when to crouch, where to walk, where to aim, etc), in the same manner you control everything in a FPS, it's the same but with 6 soldiers and an external camera.

[Aeon221]

If so, where?

Yes - units can of course rout when charging into melee, but there is no discernable morale difference between a unit charging into melee and one firing at your troops at maximum range. The problem, at least as far as what the historical sources tell us - was that troops were firstly rather unenthusiastic about going into melee in the first place (going into melee was something one did when the combat was won and one was sure the opponent would run... preferably not before) and secondly that troops with musket were much more likely to stop and fire their muskets (and begin reloading) once they got close to the enemy, rather than carry the charge home.

In Empire:TW, units told to charge will always carry home the charge if they are not routed. There is a big difference.


To be perfectly honest, hand to hand bayonet fighting was incredibly rare because either one side or the other ran away before it came time to actually use the bayonet -- unless they were fighting over a fortification of some kind.

You apparently want a rout behavior, and a "sort of routing in the sense that they'll refuse to charge" behavior. Apparently I misunderstood you initially. I think it's unnecessary and kind of silly, but whatevskies.



Re: Cavalry charging a square - yes, horses would charge a square (or a line of men). Very, very few horses - even those trained for it - would ever charge into the bayonets. The usual result of a charge against a square or infantry line by trained cavalry seems to have been that the cavalry would pull up a few metres away from the square and unload their carbines/pistols.

Garcia Hernandez is in fact a pretty perfect example of the "horses do not charge into massed infantry" statement, because it shows the dramatic effect one dead horse crashing into an infantry square had. If horses were stupid creatures (i.e., ones that could easily be convinced to charge into bayonets), then infantry squares would not have been a particularly effective form of defense.

Garcias Hernandez is not the only example of a square broken by cavalry charge from the period, so the exceptional circumstances are unimportant. It's simply one of the most famous examples of highly trained French infantry in squares breaking under a charge.

I don't think I'm getting this off clearly enough.

Cavalry charges into prepared infantry were rarely performed not because the horses were unwilling to charge bayonets, but because of the extreme toll it would take on both man and horse.

This is fairly obvious even in the game. You, as general, can order your cavalry to charge enemy infantry head on. They'll even do it! Will you? No, because they will get massacred, either by enemy fire or by bayonets.

It isn't technically impossible, but it also isn't worth doing.

[Soapyfrog]

Garcia Hernandez proves beyond a doubt that trained horses were willing to charge bayonets. Whether riders were willing to sacrifice said horses -- generally they weren't -- and whether these charges were successful -- generally they weren't -- is another matter entirely.
You are incorrect; the square broke due to a dead horse crashing into the ranks and causing a gap which the cavalry were quick to exploit. Living horses would not do this, even if the rider intended it, except by fluke.

A frontal cavalry charge was intended to produce a morale effect; if the target infantry did not break there was not much the cavalry could then do about it. In fact Lancers were developed in part as an answer to infantry squares since the lance had better reach than a bayonet; an infantry square which was low on or out of ammo was very vulnerable to lancers but otherwise immune to cavalry.

If you read all the account of infantry square being broken by cavalry or frontal cavalry charges being successful it is always due to a gap in the lines being created by either routing infantry, casualties from missile fire (of various kinds), or by fluke (like the dying horse at Garcias Hernandez).

Either way: squares or properly faced infantry beat cavalry (assuming no morale failure). And this is specifically because a living horse will not willingly "crash" into a row of bayonets. They just wont do it. There are no accounts, none, of a formed body of horsemen charging directly into a line of infantry wielding bayonets, spears, or pikes. There are accounts, however, of horses stopping so abruptly before such an obstacle that their riders were thrown head first...

[UncleSmoothie]

You apparently want a rout behavior, and a "sort of routing in the sense that they'll refuse to charge" behavior. Apparently I misunderstood you initially. I think it's unnecessary and kind of silly, but whatevskies.

One game that modeled this extremely well was the wonderful but now-forgotten Close Combat series published by Microsoft back in the 90s. Troop morale was simulated on a much more granular level - soldiers could be shaken and panic, refusing to assault enemy positions and seeking cover on their own initiative. The morale of panicked troops could be restored by moving a friendly unit to their position, or with enough time and a relief from enemy attack they would snap out of it on their own.

Troops that panicked for long enough could surrender to the enemy or rout and leave the field. CC even modeled in troops' understanding of their own capabilities. A squad with 100% morale would sometimes refuse futile orders, like assaulting a Tiger tank without any anti-tank weapons.

Goddamn those games were good.

[Soapyfrog]

Sid Meier's Gettysburg did this too. I think having troops balk at charging could be a very good thing. Troops should actually be slightly easier to rally too.

[Calistas]

I've seen enemy cav charge at my camels and then stop, mill about, and bugger off. I think the cav was already a bit shaken by losses, and the camels scared their horses. That's the only time I've seen a charge stop in ETW.

[jpinard]

I have read very little for this game yet (just a few blurbs on Amazon). Please excuse the dumbness of this post.

1. Is this game's DRM fully focused via STEAM? Aka if you buy a retail copy you still have to download/validate via STEAM?

2. What's this I hear about different units for different venders? Is there a way to unlock the extras like we could for the Sims 2 material sold via different stores? The extra cost for the "Special Forces Edition" is pretty outrageous.

[Calistas]

What governs what toucan recruit in captured provinces? I am worried that my Barbary game will have me only ever using light camel cav and some crappy line and melée infantry. :(

[Lorini]

I have read very little for this game yet (just a few blurbs on Amazon). Please excuse the dumbness of this post.

1. Is this game's DRM fully focused via STEAM? Aka if you buy a retail copy you still have to download/validate via STEAM?

2. What's this I hear about different units for different venders? Is there a way to unlock the extras like we could for the Sims 2 material sold via different stores? The extra cost for the "Special Forces Edition" is pretty outrageous.

The game (no matter where you buy it) requires Steam to run. There is no way (yet?) to unlock the extras. The extra cost for the Special Forces assumes you are buying a retail box. It may or may not be outrageous but with the Steam download you only get the extra units, nothing else.

[Enidigm]

What governs what toucan recruit in captured provinces?

You get parrots. Nothing but parrots, i'm afraid.

Honestly, most of the governors buildings can be upgraded to Military Governors, which provide a larger assortment of recruitment options, including some regional options that may not otherwise be available.

[Calistas]

Not if you're playing the Barbary States! Nothing but trash hehe. And yeah, damn iphone!

[strategy]

You apparently want a rout behavior, and a "sort of routing in the sense that they'll refuse to charge" behavior. Apparently I misunderstood you initially. I think it's unnecessary and kind of silly, but whatevskies..

No - I don't want a rout behaviour. I want troops to display the kind of unwillingness to enter bayonet combat that seems to be displayed in historical records. I want a charge to be stopped by heavy casaulties - as opposed to how it works not when an infantry unit will charge into a battery of artillery, despite 10% of the unit being slaughtered by cannister.

And its not as if it hasn't been done well before. As SoapyFrog points out, Gettysburg handled it better, and Breakaway Games refined the combat system for this period in Waterloo and Austerlitz.

And while it would be nice from the POV of making the game reflect history a bit more, primarily I want it because I find the rather melee intensive battles to be rather annoying from a gameplay viewpoint.


This is fairly obvious even in the game. You, as general, can order your cavalry to charge enemy infantry head on. They'll even do it! Will you? No, because they will get massacred, either by enemy fire or by bayonets.

It isn't technically impossible, but it also isn't worth doing.

SoapyFrog has already replied. But I think you misunderstand the point that the posters here are trying to make. The point is that as a general, you can consider ordering your cavalry to charge enemy infantry head on. They'll do it. Will you? Yes - because the likelihood is that the infantry will rout. If the infantry is doing anything, it is unlikely to get a volley off (AI needs every last man in the unit to be stationary before anyone in the unit can fire his gun) and the devastation of a cavalry charge causes such massive casaulties that the likelihood of the enemy unit routing is very high.

[schurem]

try bashing backspace if you need your infantry to shoot right the frak NOW. The ai does it too. cost me quite a few horseydudes

[zengonzo]

Anyone finding that diamond formation is actually less maneuverable?

[Calistas]

I can tell you one thing, I am pissed off a galleon can match a light galley for turning circle. Actually, I think all ships may have the same minimum turning circle. Bloody stupid it is.

[strategy]

try bashing backspace if you need your infantry to shoot right the frak NOW. The ai does it too. cost me quite a few horseydudes

Backspace just cancels the ongoing order. It unfortunately doesn't help with the problem that a unit where one man isn't in the ranks will stand and wait for the that man to reach his position before opening fire (at least that's my impression of what happens - I might be wrong).

Diamond formation seems less maneuverable, but does seem to be a bit more effective at getting that charge effect (i.e., enemy infantry flying through the air).

[zengonzo]

Could be .. But damn if they don't stand around arguing over whether they're a proper diamond or just a parallelogram while their target infantrymen have well passed the engagement point.

[schurem]

Do the enlightenment sciences still have the same social disruptive properties if they are gained through trade? I'm not quite sure, but on that assumption I've been passing them out like cheap cookies :)

[zengonzo]

Heh. Nice, schurem.

Commie pamphleteer.

[Aeon221]

You are incorrect; the square broke due to a dead horse crashing into the ranks and causing a gap which the cavalry were quick to exploit. Living horses would not do this, even if the rider intended it, except by fluke.

Ok, so did the horse magically fly to the square? Why, no, it was in fact charging towards it when shot. You know what an untrained horse does when galloped at a fence? It shies away. A trained horse jumps it. Training makes all the difference. I'd love to see your sources, or some sort of evidence other than you repeating "nu-uh" over and over again, for horses refusing to charge something.

Again, I'm not disputing that infantry squares are successful. They quite clearly are. I'm disputing your comment that horses categorically will not charge bayonets. They will. They'll die, but they will.


A horse’s natural reaction is to swerve and pass around an obstacle which appears before it. The knee-to-knee formation of a cavalry charge combined with its speed and momentum was designed to counter the collective tendency of the horses to avoid collision. The infantry soldier might have believed that his bayonet deterred the cavalry’s horses, but the explanation remains much more mundane.

I mean, seriously. I've never even heard people asserting that horses have this fear of steel before, so score one for novelty.

[Aeon221]

Anyone finding that diamond formation is actually less maneuverable?

Cavalry in general seems to be a bitch to maneuver. I'm not sure either way about the diamond formation. I generally don't have cav in my armies, and I'm generally rolling over the AI by the time I research diamond, so I don't think I've used it more than a couple of times. When I did use it, it seemed extremely inefficient for chasing down moving enemy formations. Only the lead horseman engaged.

Fire and Advance, on the other hand, recently became my favorite drill.

I can tell you one thing, I am pissed off a galleon can match a light galley for turning circle. Actually, I think all ships may have the same minimum turning circle. Bloody stupid it is.

Galleons in general piss me off. 16th century (trade) ships should not be capable of going toe to toe with a 4th rate ship of the line and winning except by a lucky explosion of the arsenal.

Have you managed to get a boarding action to actually work? My ships seem to wander off when ordered to board, and if they do in fact manage to grab hold of another ship no fighting seems to occur. Which ticks me off, because I'd prefer not to sink all that cash.

[copet]

I just finished all of my objectives for a long campaign with Sweden, but its only 1730. Do they really expect me to play 70 more years till I win? Or am I missing something here? Shouldn't the game end after I finish my objectives? :P

[mk56]

I just finished all of my objectives for a long campaign with Sweden, but its only 1730. Do they really expect me to play 70 more years till I win? Or am I missing something here? Shouldn't the game end after I finish my objectives? :P

Ha yea same thing happened to me on a short Prussia campaign. You have 50 years for that and I was done after 20 or so. I was expecting the little victory message and then a choice to keep playing. But all I got was a "good job now hold your territory for 30 more years."

[Thrag]

I seem to have hit a point where both my campaign quicksave and autosave crash on load. This is even more frustrating than having to try three times to replay the epic sea battle a few turns ago where I managed to destroy a ragtag pirate fleet of some nine galleons with my two pairs of fourth rates because the game kept crashing right around the time I was finishing off the last ship (I had to autoresolve since I could not finish the battle without crashing).

I love the potential of this game, like the other TW games, sadly it seems half finished, like the other TW games.

[ydejin]

I seem to have hit a point where both my campaign quicksave and autosave crash on load. This is even more frustrating than having to try three times to replay the epic sea battle a few turns ago where I managed to destroy a ragtag pirate fleet of some nine galleons with my two pairs of fourth rates because the game kept crashing right around the time I was finishing off the last ship (I had to autoresolve since I could not finish the battle without crashing).

I love the potential of this game, like the other TW games, sadly it seems half finished, like the other TW games.

I saw a post out on the TW tech support forum that claims if you delete the "preferences.empire_script.txt" file the game will load. For me the file is found in:

C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\The Creative Assembly\Empire\scripts

I haven't run into the bug since seeing the post, so I haven't had a chance to try it. No idea if it works or not, but probably worth a try.

[Soapyfrog]

I'd love to see your sources, or some sort of evidence other than you repeating "nu-uh" over and over again, for horses refusing to charge something.
It is for you to find a source, from any time period, describing a charging formation of horses (or even indivudal horses) crashing into a line of infantry. I unfortunately cannot do anything but say "there are no examples of this" because there aren't.

[Calistas]

Mate and ibwere discussing options for the MP strategy game. My favourite so far is both of us taking a Native American nation and working together to kick the colonists out! varients on this sort of thing could be relatively quick and extremely amusing.

[zengonzo]

Calistas, my friend and I have been very much looking forward to a multi-campaign. We concluded with exactly the same scenario.

Cavalry in general seems to be a bitch to maneuver. I'm not sure either way about the diamond formation.

Roger on that. Diamond, when you have enough time to let your mounted troops play with their ribbons or whatever, is really good at breaking a single unit quickly. Particularly when our lines are engaged and they have a free unit trying to flank, diamond will take it out pretty quickly, and can then concentrate on harassing the rest of the line.

It really effectively plows through the line, so you can get your cav to their rear for another charge.

Agreed, though, that once you research high enough all you really need are line infantry and howitzers. I'm just having fun playing the whole range.

[Thrag]

I saw a post out on the TW tech support forum that claims if you delete the "preferences.empire_script.txt" file the game will load. For me the file is found in:

C:\Users\USERNAME\AppData\Roaming\The Creative Assembly\Empire\scripts

I haven't run into the bug since seeing the post, so I haven't had a chance to try it. No idea if it works or not, but probably worth a try.

Sadly that didn't work for me. Other saves will load just not that game. It goes to the loading screen, the progress bar shows maybe 10% filled in, and then it pauses for a second and crashes.

Shame, I was on turn 63 of my massive Indian empire. I had united India and was conquering Persia while keeping my trade lanes clear of pirates with the valiant and crash prone efforts of my two navies of pairs of fourth rates. I had just rolled out a new navy of an Admirals third rate and two second rates with three more second rates on the way. I was just getting ready to sail to the Atlantic to beat the snot out of Portugal's Navy. I made a copy of the save in the hopes a future patch will solve the problem.

[wisefool]

Missing Manual, Pg. 42: Alt-fire

Land unit will move up to 'optimal range' and fire.

Fleets will use it as a 'preferred target' designator. They will not break formation to fire on it.

Also, click on "continue" when the naval battles end. Board any routing ships. Any surrendered ships will then be automatically captured as war booty.

[zengonzo]

Huh .. Nice on the alt-fire. I've a rather lauded strategy guide that I've queued up for later reading:

http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/48849/t/Spraetter-39-s-Guide-to-Empire-Total-War.html

[flyinj]

Missing Manual, Pg. 42: Alt-fire

Land unit will move up to 'optimal range' and fire.

Fleets will use it as a 'preferred target' designator. They will not break formation to fire on it.

Also, click on "continue" when the naval battles end. Board any routing ships. Any surrendered ships will then be automatically captured as war booty.

Interesting... but what -is- alt-fire? What is the control to activate it?

[UncleSmoothie]

Hold down Alt key, click "fire" command?

[wisefool]

Nice find (http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/48849/t/Spraetter-39-s-Guide-to-Empire-Total-War.html) Zengozo! I didn't even realize monarchies could move ministers between posts (I've been firing everyone..)

Yup, alt-fire is alt-RMB.

[zengonzo]

Yeah, I'm going to have a hard time giving that up for Republics ..

[ohsweetconcord]

I mean, seriously. I've never even heard people asserting that horses have this fear of steel before, so score one for novelty.

alessandro barbero, in the battle: a new history of waterloo, argues that it was impossible to get a horse, trained or not, to rush a wall of bayonets. this, in part, allowed the english to hold out long enough for the prussians to arrive. my copy of the book is on loan to one of my history profs right now, but if you'd like i can send you a page number and quote when i get it back.

[Sarkus]

I'm having an annoying experience with the tactical AI tonight but I don't know if it's a bug or just clever AI at work. Playing as Russia, I decided to go after Poland-Lith and their Courland protectorate. I have 3 pretty full armies to commit to the war, but the one that is facing a pretty large Courland stack is consistently running into a problem. As soon as I begin to move I get the "Intercepted" message, indicating the Courland army is intercepting me. The problem is that on the tactical map, where I setup on the defensive expecting to be attacked, the AI moves most of his army (minus a few units left in occupiable buildings and a few to guard his non-moving artillery) to an area near the edge of the map where he goes into a defensive posture. This is annoying the hell out of me since he intercepted my army! So I keep exiting out and reloading the autosave, but he keeps doing the same damn thing! As he has the larger numbers I don't want to try and march closer and attack him.

So is this a bug or a very clever AI move?

[UncleSmoothie]

Bug. Join the rest of us in shelving this thing until the patches and modders unfuck it.

[schurem]

Have you let the timer run out? could be their cowardice looses them the battle...

[Hetzer]

I'm having an annoying experience with the tactical AI tonight but I don't know if it's a bug or just clever AI at work. Playing as Russia, I decided to go after Poland-Lith and their Courland protectorate. I have 3 pretty full armies to commit to the war, but the one that is facing a pretty large Courland stack is consistently running into a problem. As soon as I begin to move I get the "Intercepted" message, indicating the Courland army is intercepting me. The problem is that on the tactical map, where I setup on the defensive expecting to be attacked, the AI moves most of his army (minus a few units left in occupiable buildings and a few to guard his non-moving artillery) to an area near the edge of the map where he goes into a defensive posture. This is annoying the hell out of me since he intercepted my army! So I keep exiting out and reloading the autosave, but he keeps doing the same damn thing! As he has the larger numbers I don't want to try and march closer and attack him.

So is this a bug or a very clever AI move?

Hmmm in some Boardwargames you are able to intercept the moving side AND be considered the defender... So dont be a ninny CHARGE!

[zengonzo]

Have you let the timer run for a bit? I've come to a few instances where they've been the aggressor but for whatever reason don't attack right away, but eventually do come after me.

I've yet to see a superior force not make a move, however. That's pretty strange.

[Soapyfrog]

I had an interception problem where I would intercept an approaching army but the battle would be fought at my fortress anyway... and I would lose my dug in bonus on top of that.

[UncleSmoothie]

There's definitely a persistent bug where the game doesn't recognize you as the defender - you end up losing the ability to build defensive emplacements or break your siege inadvertently all the time.

[schurem]

you know it's a viable tactic, to wait and see if the enemy will come to you.. sometimes the best offence is a good defence ;-)

[Sarkus]

you know it's a viable tactic, to wait and see if the enemy will come to you.. sometimes the best offence is a good defence ;-)

It is and I've used it myself. It's just odd that the AI chooses the exact same tactics all three times I loaded into that battle (reloading from an autosave the last two times.) That's what makes me think something else might be going on.

I just wasn't in a mood last night to play the AI's game. :-)

[zengonzo]

I finally completed my Russian short campaign the other night, and I picked up the UP so I could learn some naval battles. (Seems like you pretty much need to in order to be successful with them.)

So I repeatedly tried this one battle; pretty evenly matched, small navies ..

I'm having a much more difficult time understanding what's going wrong. Particularly confused with my most recent attempt which seemed like I had everything wrapped up tightly before it all fell apart in the final moments. (Land battles never turn quite so catastrophically.)

Disabling and separating all of their ships, I pick off the lead ship with some grapeshot. As I'm closing for the board, my other two ships surrender and begin sinking. My flagship is winning the boarding maneuver, two-to-one, when it suddenly surrenders and then falls apart.

I'm a bit frustrated. I figure the next time I go back I'm going to concentrate on disabling and destroying - forget closing to board. That's apparently where I can't win.

[Thrag]

I had a boarding action last night where both the enemy ship and my ship surrendered.

[schurem]

'we surrender!' no WE surrender!' NO WE SURRENDER!!!' NO WE frakkin SURRENDER!' but we surrendered first dammit!' yea but we surrendered moar!'

[Mehrunes]

Are you sure you didn't accidently board one of your own ships while playing as France?

It's obvious they need to add another tactical layer to naval battles for boarding actions. If they try to do enough things poorly they may, one day, achieve Derek Smart levels of engineering genius.

[Funkula]

OK, so I'm most of the way through an Austrian short campaign and I am just failing to get a lot of things.

1. What is the point of non-heavy cavalry? I've got Hungarian Hussars, which I'd think would be one of my mainstays as Austria, but they're so much weaker in combat than Uhlans or Cuirassiers that they seem useless for anything but running down the occasional arty. They don't seem to move appreciably faster than their meatier brethren, and their "Paths seldom trod" ability, which makes them harder to spot on the campaign map, only works if they're the only type of unit in the army and seems to be of dubious utility anyway.

Likewise, Carabiners seem pointless, because they can't fire on the move, they require a lot of babysitting because there's no skirmish ability like in Medieval II to help them auto-disengage from infantry charges, and they have laughable range and firepower. Dragoons seem nice for policing, but mounting/dismounting them to move or fire seems unnecessarily fiddly for what they bring to a battle, which is a paltry number of line infantry.

I don't know if horse artillery should count as cav (they actually have a campaign map speed of infantry, which was annoying when I was testing an all-cav army), but what's their deal? The speed benefit doesn't seem to outweigh the poor selection of ammo types (round/canister only at my current tech) and tiny caliber. I'd much rather have slower-moving howitzers that can bust out explosions and flame.

2. What is the point of light infantry? I tried using Pandours near the beginning, who have an ability that looks awesome on paper (they can hide damn near anywhere, and they can walk without breaking stealth), but when they get to the fight they're an undersized unit with crappy stats. I haven't unlocked Jaegers yet, but their stats don't suggest they'd be more useful than bringing another line infantry or grenadier unit.

3. Thus far there don't seem to be benefits to fiddling with different army compositions for different situations. The best all-around solution seems to be:

1 general
4 cuirassiers
4 howitzers (or 3 with 1 direct-fire foot arty for canister)
7 line infantry
4 grenadiers

Going heavy on cavalry or artillery doesn't seem to have much to recommend it. Likewise, mixing in dragoons, carabiners, hussars, or irregulars doesn't seem to help in any appreciable way.

[Sarkus]

OK, so I'm most of the way through an Austrian short campaign and I am just failing to get a lot of things.

1. What is the point of non-heavy cavalry? I've got Hungarian Hussars, which I'd think would be one of my mainstays as Austria, but they're so much weaker in combat than Uhlans or Cuirassiers that they seem useless for anything but running down the occasional arty. They don't seem to move appreciably faster than their meatier brethren, and their "Paths seldom trod" ability, which makes them harder to spot on the campaign map, only works if they're the only type of unit in the army and seems to be of dubious utility anyway.

Likewise, Carabiners seem pointless, because they can't fire on the move, they require a lot of babysitting because there's no skirmish ability like in Medieval II to help them auto-disengage from infantry charges, and they have laughable range and firepower. Dragoons seem nice for policing, but mounting/dismounting them to move or fire seems unnecessarily fiddly for what they bring to a battle, which is a paltry number of line infantry.

I don't know if horse artillery should count as cav (they actually have a campaign map speed of infantry, which was annoying when I was testing an all-cav army), but what's their deal? The speed benefit doesn't seem to outweigh the poor selection of ammo types (round/canister only at my current tech) and tiny caliber. I'd much rather have slower-moving howitzers that can bust out explosions and flame.

2. What is the point of light infantry? I tried using Pandours near the beginning, who have an ability that looks awesome on paper (they can hide damn near anywhere, and they can walk without breaking stealth), but when they get to the fight they're an undersized unit with crappy stats. I haven't unlocked Jaegers yet, but their stats don't suggest they'd be more useful than bringing another line infantry or grenadier unit.

3. Thus far there don't seem to be benefits to fiddling with different army compositions for different situations. The best all-around solution seems to be:

1 general
4 cuirassiers
4 howitzers (or 3 with 1 direct-fire foot arty for canister)
7 line infantry
4 grenadiers

Going heavy on cavalry or artillery doesn't seem to have much to recommend it. Likewise, mixing in dragoons, carabiners, hussars, or irregulars doesn't seem to help in any appreciable way.

Based on how you play all units may not be particularly valuable. However, the idea is that you can set up ambush points not only on the tactical map but also the strategic map and that's where the stealthier units come in. Dragoons are basically used for quick reacting reserves or quick deploying flanking units. And so on. If all you want to do is set up classic battlefield slugfests then your army mix is probably all you need.

[Thrag]

I like skirmishers and light infantry. They can't stand toe to toe with line infantry, but they are great for flanking and harassing. Make sure to have skirmish mode on, it says they will take cover and I believe I have noticed them taking less damage then when not in skirmish mode (or light infantry tactics mode for Jagers). IIRC some light infantry types have good stamina, so you can run them all over the map when necessary.

While Pandours do have sucky stats, later skirmishers/light inf like British Rangers and Austrian Jagers have excellent accuracy and range.

Use them to quickly run from a nearby concealed position to the flanks or rear of an engaged enemy, or to harass an enemy as it tries to advance. An advancing enemy line has to decide to take the fire, or stop and form up to fight giving your artillery more time to work on them. Having a hidden skirmisher sprint up to take out enemy artillery after the main line has advanced and engaged can also be useful and frees up your cavalry for more important things like charging the flanks of the enemy line infantry (assuming there's a nice place to hide such a skirmisher).

Horse artillery can actually be very useful. Shot and canister should be all you need. Horse artillery moves at a decent speed, but it can also run. It seems to move much faster than foot artillery, especially in rough terrain. Foot artillery is for providing firepower at the center of your line, horse artillery is for flanking the enemy once engaged. If you can get a those 6lb guns firing shot enfilade all the way down the enemy line it can be devastating, and just one volley of canister info the flank of an engaged enemy is usually enough to shatter it.

At the point I'm at in my Austrian campaign, I'm going with two mortars for fixed long range devastation, and two 6lb horse guns as flying batteries for once the the enemy line is engaged.

[Soapyfrog]

When I fought Poland they insisted on using large armies of Pandours. Didn't turn out well for them.

I would say that light infantry is largely useless, with the exception of Jaegers (and presumably other rifle troops) which significantly outrange muskets (125 range vs 70). The one cool thing that light infantry can do is plant stakes on the battlefield, which you can use to defend your artillery position.

[Grifman]

Ok, so did the horse magically fly to the square? Why, no, it was in fact charging towards it when shot.

You know, there is this thing called momentum, that will take you where you don't want to go, if you are otherwise unable to stop or change direction. I suspect the horse would not have carried its charge home had it not been shot.

You know what an untrained horse does when galloped at a fence? It shies away. A trained horse jumps it. Training makes all the difference.

Training a horse to jump over a fence is not the same thing as training it to run into the fence. Do you have any examples of that? :)

I'd love to see your sources, or some sort of evidence other than you repeating "nu-uh" over and over again, for horses refusing to charge something.

John Keegan in "The Face of Battle" mentions this, and I'm pretty certain I've seen it elsewhere.

I mean, seriously. I've never even heard people asserting that horses have this fear of steel before, so score one for novelty.

Good because no one here is asserting this. No one is claiming that horses are afraid of steel. We say that they are afraid of charging into masses of men pointing sharp pointy things at them. As for novelty, I've never heard anyone say that they would before, so we're even on that score :)

[Thrag]

When I fought Poland they insisted on using large armies of Pandours. Didn't turn out well for them.

I had the same experience. Most of the AIs unit production seemed to be Pandours and sometimes cannons.

[Calistas]

Tip of the day: as any of the islamic powers you get camel musket doods. At 30 per unit with slow reload they seemed a bit pointless to me, but they have one strength, their height makes it seemingly safe for them to fire over infantry in front of them, at least that's how it looked to me. They also weild a particularly large musket which apparently is quite damaging. Or something. So there you go, maybe that helps.

[Calistas]

I've started a http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/03/22/dar-al-islam-a-barbary-states-empire-total-war-aar-part-1/ Barbary States AAR over on me site. I'd post it here in a separate thread, but it might be kinda pointless. Hope you enjoy :)

[flyinj]

Anyone know what the status of the ship-borne invasions patch is?

This game is completely pointless to play until that comes out...

[UncleSmoothie]

There was a patch due "early next week", but that was two weeks ago. Don't know what the status is now.

[Sarkus]

Anyone know what the status of the ship-borne invasions patch is?

This game is completely pointless to play until that comes out...

No one knows when the next patch will be or what it will contain. There was some talk about a major patch coming last week, but then CA said they would "update the status of the next patch" early this week. They've also said they are focusing on dealing with stability issues first, so it may be some time before they deal with the AI gaffes.

[zengonzo]

I still find ways to enjoy it in the meantime, but the lack of troop shippage is a devastating problem for a game about colonialism.

[UncleSmoothie]

Patch details (http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/51295/t/Next-update-details-.html):


Hi guys,

As many of you have asked what will be contained in our next update, here is a list of some of the fixes that are currently being worked on:

- Load time detection on trade routes to fix pathfinding crash in campaign (this fixes a crash to desktop)

- Some General Sound balancing improvements (this fixes some unit sound problems)

- Fixed UI Chat hang when spectator leaves unranked match with 3+ players (this fixes a multiplayer problem)

- Addressed several code issues causing crash to desktop

- Fixed several save or load issues

- Corrected campaign map agents behaviour (this fixes a crash to desktop)

- Fix to animation glitch causing repetitive sounds when battle is launched.

A full list of fixes will be published with the update.

Thanks,


Mark O'Connell
(aka SenseiTW)


No ETA. They've clearly prioritized improving stability over the braindead AI, which I can't blame them for. Looks like Empire is going to stay on the shelf for at least another couple of months - for me at any rate.

[schurem]

at least its bein worked on :)

[Eduardo X]

I had a bizarre mix of bugs when I was taking over Philadelphia last night, including infantry units with 0/7401 men remaining, artillery units that were about 300 yards south of the city walls, but when I sent my horses to attack, appeared back inside the walls, and then after the battle finished, a CTD before I could save.
Infuriating, I must say.

[Jakub]

I'm finding this game to be deeply disappointing. =/

[wisefool]

I like it.

I never noticed that the light dragoons can shoot all at once (even the third row shoots).

I understand they shoot better when dismounted, but do they melee better on horsies or dismounted?

[Sarkus]

Apparently Steam has another patch for Empire today. As soon as I turned on my computer (I have Steam as a launch app) it started downloading and then told me Empire was ready when it was done.

However, word from the devs yesterday was that they were still focusing on fixing technical issues, so I don't think this is supposed to do anything for the AI.

Edit: It is a patch. Here's what it fixes:

Updates to Empire: Total War have been released. The updates will be applied automatically when your Steam client is restarted. The specific changes include:

Empire: Total War
Multiplayer – can now find friends across regions
Load time detection on trade routes to fix pathfinding crash in campaign
Some General Sound balancing improvements
Fixed UI Chat hang when spectator leaves unranked match with 3+ players
Varies Campaign Crash Fixes
Some Save/Load fixes
Boarding fix where cannon crew board order was not being deleted properly causing crash
Fix to kill characters instantly to stop crashes in campaign on agent/general deaths
Save games limited to 1000
Fix to animation glitch causing repetitive sounds when battle is launched

Comments in the various forums suggest this patch has not solved everyone's problems. Still a lot of CTD reports and such, but those are people trying to play existing games. Whether starting a new game from scratch or not will work is yet to be seen.

They also released a statement about the plan going forward:

Dear All,

I'd like to take this opportunity to outline our update plans more clearly.

The next hotfix will be released very soon, this fixes those critical issues described in Sensei's recent post. We're working very hard to get that tested and released as soon as possible.

We're currently following a model of releasing a hot-fix, followed by a large gameplay update afterwards.

This will then be followed by further hot-fixes and again, a later large gameplay upgrade.

The gameplay updates address everything to do with gameplay, naval landings, AI behaviour, unit balancing, the lot. The hot-fixes correct game code issues that cause crashes and instability on some systems.

The larger gameplay upgrades are being developed in parallel and will be released in a timely fashion following the fixes.

So in summary:

i. The next patch is coming shortly, this will fix a number of critical code issues.

ii. Following the next patch a massive gameplay update is being prepared which will address: balancing, naval units, AI behaviour and other issues.

iii. This cycle of 'fix-upgrade' will then continue.


We are genuine about intending to support the community in the long run and we are all still working on Empire, games sold are not games forgotten.

I'm aware everyone will inevitably ask 'when' and all I can say is very shortly for the next hot-fix and within a few weeks for the major gameplay upgrade.

Kind regards,
Kieran

So we're still weeks away from any attempt to fix the AI.

[Lorini]

At least they are committed to fixing it, not all companies say this. I'm happy to wait, I have plenty of games (and homework!) to keep me busy in the meantime.

[Tim James]

I hate to say it but it seems like they are still putting games out that require a few months of work. By that time the price ought to come down. Buyer beware for the next Total War game.

[Cubit]

I hate to say it but it seems like they are still putting games out that require a few months of work. By that time the price ought to come down. Buyer beware for the next Total War game.

This man speaks truth.

p.s. now that i think about it, lets just have CA and Paradox merge. Then they can have their own little unfinished game party.

[Lorini]

I knew that going in, every TW game has always needed major patches, why would this one be any different? I still liked to play with it though, although I am waiting for the patch now.

[schurem]

oh ffs its a bloody pc game. complex as all hell and back. patching cycles are part and parcel of it. caveat bloody emptor indeed but ffs stop whining about it! be glad they dont release-and-abandon as happens all too often.

I've grown up on PC flight sims. Those died out, but before they did, they used to be buggy as hell. Four patches until stable and playable, six until all potential was realised wasnt uncommon. I learned to be patient and see potential.

Empire has gobs of potential. It's basic premise is awesome, as are almost all of its detailings. Shure its rough round the edges and not quite done yet. Shit its too large to ever be all done. It's fairly open to modding, and the devs themselves arent done with it. I dare Tom to write another review in 6 months. See how it is by then.

[Tim James]

I'm not whining about it. I didn't buy it yet.

[Sarkus]

I knew that going in, every TW game has always needed major patches, why would this one be any different? I still liked to play with it though, although I am waiting for the patch now.

While that's true, this is by far the worst of the games at launch, at least of the three I've purchased day one. Shogun and Rome had issues, but nothing that was as obvious to me. And while I don't have CTD issues with Empire (and a lot of other people do), I do see the slowdowns as the game progresses, indicating a major memory leak.

And the AI in the other games wasn't as passive as it is in Empire, at least as far as the major powers go on the strategic level.

[Tyrion]

oh ffs its a bloody pc game. complex as all hell and back. patching cycles are part and parcel of it. caveat bloody emptor indeed but ffs stop whining about it! be glad they dont release-and-abandon as happens all too often.

I've grown up on PC flight sims. Those died out, but before they did, they used to be buggy as hell. Four patches until stable and playable, six until all potential was realised wasnt uncommon. I learned to be patient and see potential.

Empire has gobs of potential. It's basic premise is awesome, as are almost all of its detailings. Shure its rough round the edges and not quite done yet. Shit its too large to ever be all done. It's fairly open to modding, and the devs themselves arent done with it. I dare Tom to write another review in 6 months. See how it is by then.
The developers have done this too often, though. Other developers like Paradox have actually learned and improved, and nowadays their games are actually fun and playable out of the box (which was unthinkable with their early releases). Arguably their strategy games are even more complex than the Total Wars--and much lower budget, to boot.

[Calistas]

I am pleased to say that as the Barbary States I have finally crested a hill that had been bothering me and now have most of italy under control (I will take genoa and savoy in my own time) morocco conquered and lots of money coming in. With this time of peace I can finally upgrade all my buildings and look to the future.

I wonder if I can revolt my minor power to a republic or something. Hmm.

Playing a minor power, especially one that starts at war with so many, is quite a challenge!

[zengonzo]

So did you manage to get your research going and produce modern units?

[Calistas]

Nope! Permanetly locked out I believe. No arty, no modern units.

[zengonzo]

You are dedicated.

[schurem]

i tried giving away the barbary states, but noone wanted them lol

[Funkula]

Well, yesterday's patch has broken the game for me. I was exempt from all the horrible crash issues I'd been hearing about, but now the game dies every time I finish a battle. Great job, guys.

[UncleSmoothie]

'Nother patch (http://store.steampowered.com/news/2383/), spotted it on Steam's Twitter feed.

Empire: Total War

* Issue with save games disappearing from the save game list if fixed
* Updated of the Miles dll to fix some random crashes in sound

Two patches in as many days is encouraging, yeah?

[Calistas]

1720 to 1740 posted
http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/03/27/dar-al-islam-a-barbary-states-empire-total-war-aar-part-2/

[schurem]

awesome calistas. not having too much trouble of the technical sort i hope?

[schurem]

(why cant i edit my previous post?)

you should try this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=237457) for greater justice.

and maybe this (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=240571) while you wait for CA to fix some of the worse AI problems. Tom should check this out too.

[Calistas]

Lots! But the game has been more stable since the patch. It's very finicky for me, sometimes it dies sometimes not. One thing I have noticed since the patch is the I am not crashing on click any more. Sometimes I get a really long delay when selecting a unit or agent, but no full lock up.

[CSL]

I had, bar none, the best multiplayer battle online last night against Calvin.

Early period Britain (Me) vs. Prussia (Calvin). I've got a set limit of ten units per side since my rig is rather mediocre on the graphics card side. I took a general unit, two units of dragoons, three howitzer units, and the rest line infantry. It was on the Algerian map so I placed my infantry within the large copse of woods with the artillery on the flank with the idea of letting him attack the artillery and then springing the trap of my infantry onto his flank.

That didn't really work out in the end. My first move was to move my cavalry on a long thrusting manuveur around to try and catch half his infantry as they were advancing, but it was at such a distance that I only ended up losing a good few men in the bad idea, but still I managed to get them sorted out and behind Calvin's line where I had them wait. Eventually he took his eye off them and advanced his men against my position - but spread into two advances on a wide front, infantry on either flanks and horse artillery and cavalry in the centre. My dragoons struck as soon as he limbered his artillery and largely took that arm out of the fight but by then the infantry battle was developing around the woods and I was clearly outnumbered and got thrashed about though I gave as good as I got. Problem was howitzers don't have canister. And from the way he attacked I had a prime opporunity to use six cannons on his very close flank and instead largely ineffective ball shot was all I could muster. Quickly my artillery was abandoned as a result.

My brave valiant dragoons though had by now defeated not only his artillery but also his cavalry and now smashed into the rear of his line infantry repeatedly, but to no avail as my infantry had all routed. So they took off to my rear and dismouted making their way to a wall for cover, unleashing one volley from their carbines before the Prussians got into melee range. From there my brave three dozen dragoons fought for nigh on four minutes against ten times their number before, with scant a dozen left they broke.

I shall never forget them. Those brave, valiant dragoons.

[Thrag]

I've got a new crash. In my current campaign game any naval action where I play the battle results in a crash shortly after returning to the campaign map. I can still autoresolve naval actions, but playing any naval action at all results in a crash when I go back to the strategy map. I had just rolled out some heavy first rate ships of the line too, shame.

Well, I guess it's better than my first campaign that I played to about turn 63 but now the save crashes on load.

[smithcorp]

I've been lucky with stability on my rig and I'm still playing the RtI campaign (Chapter III - early stages of expansion), but i still love this game for the moments it can give you in the battles. If you’ll indulge me with a couple – two units (one line infantry, one militia infantry) making their way to reinforce Washington’s main army bumped into a British raiding force of two units of Rangers. The Rangers were outnumbered two-to-one but my infantry were untested and I didn’t want them mauled. The field was a snowy open area with some small wooded areas and the Rangers had the high ground, quickly advancing.

I arranged my guys in two lines of two-deep, with the line infantry in front and the militia a few paces behind and planned to use fire and advance against the bad guys.

The Ranger’s first volley, as my lines were still shaking out, cost me only about 5 casualties and my return volley cost them about the same. But as soon as my first unit had fired, I switched off fire at will, ran the second line through them and as the line infantry reloaded, the militia fired into the still reloading Rangers. After that volley, I repeated the movement, running the line infantry forward and switching “fire at will” back on. The first unit of Rangers quickly routed after losing half their number and after two more volleys the other Ranger unit also routed. I never had to go to melee and managed to break the Rangers (whom I guess had longer reload times and therefore couldn’t punch back as effectively) and I only lost a handful of men.

The second moment was when a British raiding party hit a mine which I was defending with a unit of line militia. The battle screen had my militia up against two units of Rangers and one unit of Grenadiers (aiee), but I had reinforcements of four units from a nearby fort. However, as is usually the case, the reinforcements spawned with the enemy between them and the militia unit, and a long way apart.

I ran the militia unit at an angle towards the relief column, hoping to avoid engagement until things were more favourable, but the Rangers were fast and my guys were tiring and I worked out they weren’t going to make it. Better to make a stand and try to thin their numbers.

I shook them out into a line and the militia started trading shots with the Rangers, but the Rangers were taking a toll on my weary blokes. Worse, the Grenadiers were lumbering up. I figured my only chance was to try to break the Rangers through melee and then try to disengage. I ran the militia into the Rangers in melee mode but the Rangers held until the Grenadiers joined in. “Oh well” I thought, It’s all over now.

But against the odds my militia held their own. First the Ranger units, one by one, broke and fled until it was down to the militia (at less than half strength by now) against the Grenadiers. Then I was surprised to see the Grenadiers’ flag starting to flash! They were close to breaking. I zoomed in and watched my brave militia slugging it out against the pride of the Brits, as slowly, the reinforcements got closer. The struggle see-sawed brutally, but finally, the disciplined British troops prevailed and my militia broke and fled moments before they would have been saved. The surviving Grenadiers were quickly brushed aside but I regretted the loss of my brave militia. They gave their all to defend that iron mine.

[Warren]

Sigh. Despite patches, still can't play.

<cry>

[Funkula]

Yay, the new patch (third one in less than a week) un-broke the stuff that the first patch broke! I can play again!

[Sarkus]

OMG! They totally just released a patch that fixes everthing!




:-)

[zengonzo]

Everything?

[Equis]

Is the AI smarter yet?

[schurem]

try some of the mods on totalwar.org

[Cubit]

http://kotaku.com/5204490/gameplay-changes-coming-to-empire-total-war
Despite the fact that Empire: Total War still needs technical fixes (late-game slowdown is still a pain), the team at Creative Assembly feel now's the time to start introducing some gameplay changes as well.

While more technical updates are on the way, CA are also working on a raft of tweaks and fixes to both single and multiplayer gameplay, including changes to unit prices, upkeep costs, AI tactics and, most important of all, the introduction of AI naval invasions. There goes my "Fortress Britain" fallback.

Also in line for alteration is unit balancing, a change to the game's economy to prevent late-game stockpiling of huge amounts of cash and the ability to delete those save games that have been building up as your grand campaigns progress.

All that and more will be included in the game's next patch, due soon, while future gameplay upgrades will address more unit balance issues, AI upgrades and "some nice free stuff".

[Sarkus]

http://kotaku.com/5204490/gameplay-changes-coming-to-empire-total-war

Well it has been a month since the game came out. Perhaps we are ready for these gameplay changes.

[UncleSmoothie]

Is the AI smarter yet?

I've heard good things about Quixote's Imperial Splendor mod, but it doesn't fix the AI's inability find the gangplanks for its ships so I haven't bothered yet.

[flyinj]

Just saw this about the upcoming patch:


And what did you mean by rare naval invasions for now?

We've fixed the bugs that were preventing the AI from doing naval invasions, but that did not mean they would suddenly start doing them all the time. The priority for them needs to be balanced against all the other items that have priorities for the AI and this will take a while to get right. We are going to continuously improve the AI so the amount of naval invasions will keep on getting better from the initial fix that is coming in the next patch.


So wait. This means the AI not invading from sea wasn't a bug, it was something that they never actually implemented! How in the hell could you ship a game about colonization, and knowingly not allow the AI to actually colonize anything?

Amazing.

[jfletch]

Sounds like this game wasn't even close to being ready for release (using customers to progressively finish your AI? seriously?). CA and perhaps more appropriately Sega should be ashamed.

That said, in the GS sale, I *did* grab Medieval: Total War 2 so hopefully that's a bit more rounded out. Glad I skipped out.

[Aeon221]

Darthmod for Empire is pretty good. Muskets have an accuracy of ~20, while cannon have an accuracy of ~55. Makes artillery a little more viable.

[Sarkus]

Just saw this about the upcoming patch:

So wait. This means the AI not invading from sea wasn't a bug, it was something that they never actually implemented! How in the hell could you ship a game about colonization, and knowingly not allow the AI to actually colonize anything?

Amazing.

Reread what you quoted. There was a bug, but they are saying that fixing it does not mean the AI will suddenly start using sea transport in a big way.

And Empire isn't about colonization anyway. The game starts in 1700 and by then the areas of the world that are in the game had already been colonized. India is a special case, since it was never "colonized" in the way that the Americas were, instead being forced into a sort of protectorate of the British Empire. A different thing altogether. The AI needs to be willing to use naval transport to make the game more interesting, but not because it needs to "colonize."

Plus, it's been clear for some time that the game was shipped too early. Hence the incomplete balancing of the AI, among other things.

[UncleSmoothie]

The AI needs to be willing to use naval transport to make the game worth playing at all, but not because it needs to "colonize."


12345

[ryan]

I can't seem to play anymore. I was able to sidestep two previous episodes where moving a unit into a certain territory would send me back to the desktop, but I seem to have hit a wall. In taking Prussia to global domination (past the short campaign and to the New Rome achievement), I can't seem to reinforce key armies or attack enemies bordering on my colonies in the New World. Previously, the issues were only one at a time, but now I have multiple problems at once and I'm left just kind of stuck.


You live for now, Quebec!

[deccan]

How do I get the cannons on top of my forts to fire? They don't seem to do anything. Oddly enough, I miss the ballista towers that used to defend my cities in Medieval 1. Those could certainly dish out the hurt on invading enemies!

[Funkula]

You have to put a unit of infantry next to them, then pray that the shitty wall pathfinding allows them to move to man the guns.

[zengonzo]

And actually get off one shot before the enemy swarms the walls.

I wish I could research scissors ..

[deccan]

Heh, after fumbling around with manning the defenses, I reloaded that battle and won it by deploying my forces outside the city walls and just keeping one infantry unit at the flag in the middle. Worked much better than actually trying to defend from the walls. Forts and city walls seem pointless to me since infantry can just climb up the walls anywhere they want.

Did someone invent rocket-propelled grappling hooks in the 18th century or something?

[zengonzo]

Yeah, I agree that's pretty off. You can't even defend one point as they'll come from elsewhere. They should've at least made it a siege machine which launches grapples from a ballista.

Eh ..

Also, I didn't try much but taking out wall defenses with your own artillery seems pointless, particularly if you can just swarm. The walls need to employ that canister shot, and then you should have to counter that with artillery, focusing on taking one particular point rather than swarming every single wall.

I still managed to pull off an incredible defense of one fort with only two infantry and two cavalry against a full stack. It was pretty awesome at the time. I would not have been able to do the same outside of the fort.

[Calistas]

Part 3 of my Barbary States AAR is up
http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/04/12/dar-al-islam-a-barbary-states-empire-total-war-aar-part-3/

It's going pretty awesomely :)

[schurem]

lookin at your trade summary, you might want to do some more antipiracy sea-police action. two of your best routes are blocked!

[Calistas]

Eep! Well spotted! Problem is they are probably blocked by people I'm friendly with, but who are at war with a trade partner. I'll have a look see.

[Lh'owon]

Eep! Well spotted! Problem is they are probably blocked by people I'm friendly with, but who are at war with a trade partner. I'll have a look see.

I'm pretty sure "blocking" a trade route only means the goods going to the countries the ship is at war with are stopped. It would be a bit silly otherwise!

You can see how much wealth each country using the trade route is generating by (I think) hovering your mouse over it. The countries actually being blocked will presumably have 0 income.

And make sure you check all along the route - there might be an enemy ship blocking it further up the 'line' somewhere.

[Calistas]

I think it was the Swedish fleet I popped. Trade seems good now

[smithcorp]

The last patches seem to have re-stabilised my game and also given me about 5 extra frames per second. One patch gave me some crashes but things are stable now it seems.

I'm still in RtI (not a lot of time to play these days) but in Chapter III battling the British for control of America. I'm still a TW newbie so this campaign is a really good tutorial and I'm steadily getting the hang of researching technology and using Gentlemen and Rakes etc. Playing through this gives me the confidence to try a real campaign next.

I decided to strike north and capture Canada while keeping a strong army protecting Boston and so far Washington's men have the last remnants of the northern Brits trapped in Newfoundland. I almost came to grief in the last big fight with these trapped forces because I had pushed fast with Washington's army, not pausing to replenish forces.

So with his army down to about half-strength, but highly experienced, Washington faced about a stack and a half, with the Brits dominated by units of native mounted auxiliaries who can fire from horseback and also use tomahawks. Nasty.

The fight was against two armies, with a big force dominated by the mounted auxiliaries appearing on my right flank. I had to rapidly reorient my forces and while a fenceline kept my front reasonably well protected, my right was swinging in the air and lines of minutemen and a few line units (in square) had to keep a huge force at bay.

My grenadiers saved the day. As my artillery routed and some minutemen and understrength line units got overwhelmed, two units of Grenadiers were able to blast away the enemy threat in front and then run to reinforce the right flank just in time. Then a desperate cavalry charge including Washington's unit routed the Brits.

It was a close run thing, with some of my line units down to 11 men at the end. I'm spending two turns building my forces back up for the final push in Canada before then turning south to take America.

No trouble with the Indians so far - I gifted the province beside New France (with Montreal in it?) to the French and they had all the fights with the Iroquois and Huron over it. The Indian nations took it off them and are now squabbling away amongst themselves. But they have big armies right next door to me...

[deccan]

About the new agents that are spawned from buildings, is it +1 agent per each upgrade level per building or +1 agent per building period? I'm playing as the Indians and I'm having a hard time spawning enough Brahmins. Right now in my game I have only 2 of them, despite having at least four religious buildings, three of which are fully upgraded.

[Deadbuffalo]

*sigh*

Did anyone else open this thread hoping that someone would post the patch notes including that the AI can use boats and attack/defend better?

There should be a moratorium on this thread until that post.

[RobZacny]

*sigh*

Did anyone else open this thread hoping that someone would post the patch notes including that the AI can use boats and attack/defend better?

There should be a moratorium on this thread until that post.

I just stopped by to see if anyone was actually still playing this. I hit the wall at about 60 hours of play and just haven't been able to force myself to continue. Creative Assembly should just lease the engine to someone who can make something more involved than a tech demo.

[copet]

I actually just opened this thread to see if a patch was out yet. Way to easy at the moment :(

....except for trading. Lack of a good manual still has me confused with trading.

[Sarkus]

*sigh*

Did anyone else open this thread hoping that someone would post the patch notes including that the AI can use boats and attack/defend better?

There should be a moratorium on this thread until that post.

That patch isn't out yet AFAIK. And see above about an earlier discussion on what to expect based on CA statements.

On the other hand, there are a few AI mods out that seem to improve the attack/defend issue somewhat.

[Soapyfrog]

I've been eyeing DarthMod which makes a lot of pleasing changes. I will probably try it after my current campaign is finished.

[Deadbuffalo]

Imperial splendor looks better to me, but the author of the AI changes there said that a lot of stuff affecting the AI was basically unmoddable at this point. Furthermore he points out that his changes will have to be redone once the AI properly factors in naval invasions. This is consistent with my own tinkering with the AI priorities as far as I can tell. I gotta poke around someday at how Imperial Splendor actually approached improving the AI.

I don't agree with all of DarthMod's changes, and the main ai change seems to be that he took the base value of attack/defend priorities and multiplied by 10. If/when CA releases the fixes for navy invasions, then that probably will cause additional problems or unexpected behavior.

And yes, I've seen the patch notes above, I want the actual steam patch notes when all of that is actually fixed and pushed out. Anyway, move on, nothing to see here, come back in a couple of months.

[UncleSmoothie]

What a waste of $50. By the time the game gets into a state where I'd want to play it, it'll be on the bargain rack. I've learned my lesson about CA.

[Soapyfrog]

This is consistent with my own tinkering with the AI priorities as far as I can tell. I gotta poke around someday at how Imperial Splendor actually approached improving the AI.
I thought he was just pilfering Darth's AI changes?

[Grifman]

You have to put a unit of infantry next to them, then pray that the shitty wall pathfinding allows them to move to man the guns.

Can you not place your troops on top of the wall like RTW and MTW?

[salwon]

Put them on the wall, and when the enemy gets in range, they'll move to the guns. It works pretty well - mechanically, at least, my guys always do what I expect. But they only ever manage to get only one or two rounds off before the enemy starts climbing. If they could load canister it would be much more effective.

[Sarkus]

Put them on the wall, and when the enemy gets in range, they'll move to the guns. It works pretty well - mechanically, at least, my guys always do what I expect. But they only ever manage to get only one or two rounds off before the enemy starts climbing. If they could load canister it would be much more effective.

The whole fort thing is messed up and a step back from previous games. The forts should have more guns, be automatically crewed, and be able to fire from a longer range, doing decent damage as troops approach. In other words, the way forts/walls worked in the previous games. Then it should come down to the battle for the walls, if they get close enough to assault.

As it is, forts are almost pointless.

[Cubit]

i really should have known better than to buy this game on launch...

[copet]

Is it possible to do human vs human campaigns? Or is that something that is planning to be released later?

[Cubit]

Is it possible to do human vs human campaigns? Or is that something that is planning to be released later?

not yet. thats the mp that they are working on.

[salwon]

There's no way that's ever going to happen. At least not in a way that doesn't completely blow.

[Calistas]

2 player campaigns are coming where the other player always plays the other side in a tactical battle. Mate and I thought we might take American Indians and try and liberate the US from the imperialists! We would have to auto-resolve the battles I expect. Same idea or India could be good, or play adversaries in a small, limited theatre like India or America.

[zengonzo]

Liberate the US? We're dying to take them all the way across the ocean!

Can you capture a galleon with a war canoe?

[Mysterio]

For those who are not aware, an extensive patch (based on the release notes) was released today:

Updates to Empire: Total War have been released. The updates will be applied automatically when your Steam client is restarted. The specific changes include:

Crash Fixes
Fixed crash when disbanding generals unit
Fix for crash on trying to merge ships from port into ships next to port
Fixed rare crash relating to boarding
Fixed crash to do with reinforcing armies
Fixed crash on revolution video attempting to play
Fixed crash for double clicking on sinking ship on campaign map
Fix for crash on merging units but moving into fort before army arrives
Fixed several crashes related to rakes
Fixed crashes relating to battles when running Czech or German versions of the game
Fixed crash on moving army into region of faction player has military access and then cancelling military access
Fixed crash on trying to exchange ships between 2 fleets
Fixed crash on spamming move orders to puckle guns locked in melee combat
Fixed hard lock on inviting host to their own MP game
Fix to prevent loading of mod causing crash post patch
Various end turn crash bugs fixed
Fixes to crash bugs relating to completion of revolutions
Some fixes relating to merging and disbanding
Fix for several crashes in land battles
Several crashes relating to attacking cities fixed
Several load save game crashes fixedCampaign
Armies now placed correctly on battlefields in relation to campaign
Fix for nearby ships sometimes not being included as reinforcements for battles
Fix for incorrect numbers sometimes showing on trade routes
Units with limits on how many can be recruited now show how many are available
Various fixes relating to rakes and infiltrating
Fixes relating to problems moving armies/merging into army's right next to settlements
Various trade bug fixes
Fix for moving agent from settlement moving army instead of agent
Fix for several bugs relating to military access and armies being in regions
Fix for tattered flags appearing on fleet/armies even when at full strength/fully repaired
Fix for sallying out armies breaking siege at times even when losing the battle
Fix for bugs relating to capturing ships on returning to campaign map from naval battleLand Battle
Improvements to path finding have been made
Some fixes to units not garrisoning buildings
Fort gate ownership made clearer with faction flags appearing at the gatehouse
Fix for problem relating to artillery unlimbering after being ordered to limber
Fix for puckle guns moving on their own in some circumstances
Fix for big slowdown in unit movement on some battle maps in the Road to Independence episodes
Fix for missile cavalry not reloading when out of combat
Jaegers now have muskets instead of incorrect rifles, Prussian Jaegers keep rifles
Quebec episodic land battle fixed ground type in deployment area
Fix for unrealistic numbers when ending a land battle by quitting on the battle results screenNaval Battle
Several fixes for ships clipping into each other
Improvements to boarding have been made. Crew is more fluid in attack and more resolute in defence. Men survive long fall and officers join in the boarding attack
Crew uniforms improved to make identification of the crew type and faction easier
Defending ship is not allowed to fire cannons anymore during boarding procedure
Improved naval grouping UI and group movement made
Improvements made to ship collisions to reduce chance of ships getting stuck
Fix for sail damage not being shown when volumetric effects turned onMultiplayer
Various fixes for joining games/game lobby issues
Fixes for problems relating to spectators being kicked/locking up on other players joining games in certain instances
Long riflemen and winged hussars removed from early era battles
Fix for insufficient funds always showing on unit cards even when enough money is available
Player name is now displayed on unit tooltips
Team chat is now displayed in a different colourAI
Basic fix for AI being unable to move army by fleet
Aggression of factions in campaign improved, as well as tweaks to diplomacy
Improvements to campaign AI relating to its waging of wars, recruitment and movement of armies
Improvements made to battle AI to make it more reactive, use buildings better as well as squares and rakes
Siege battle AI improvements made
Improvements to naval AI to make it bunch up less, its use of galleys and long range units such as bomb ketchesMiscellaneous
Delete save game button added to save game list
View replays button added to single player Play Battle menu
Various sound fixes and improvements
Various incorrect text messages fixed
Fixes to various graphical glitches with display of walls
Fixes made for stuttering videos
Fix for several game option settings not being saved correctly, including settings such as floating flags
Fix for unit voices/attack confirmation being heard for all units in an alliance instead of just for the player’s army
Armour and shield values are now added into melee defence value shown on unit cards
Lots of other small and minor bug fixesBalancing
Land unit recruitment cost in campaign has been increased, with higher cost on higher difficulty level
Ship recruitment and upkeep costs have been increased in campaign
Various balancing and cost adjustments to improve multiplayer land battle balance
Ship costing improvements made for both campaign and multiplayer
Economic tweaks have been made to campaign to reduce amount of money made in later part of campaignExtra Note
We are aware of an issue with community created maps that results in a crash when someone without the map tries to join the game. This crash will be fixed in the next patch
Further work is being done on improving AI Naval invasion behaviour and this will be included in the next upgrade patch

[RodeoRanch]

About fucking time.

[Thrag]

My savegames that crashed on load in the prior version still crash on load. Hopefully saves won't become corrupt anymore, but no fix for existing games.

Looks like the bug with light infantry facing to the side instead of facing front after moving wasn't fixed either. Even worse, giving an attack order made them run in unexpected directions instead of simply turning to fire at the enemy right in front of them. Worse still skirmish mode is completely broken now. They don't run away from the enemy at all.

I didn't test it extensively, but it looks like the bug with artillery unlimbering right after they limber isn't fixed either.

Come on CA, you couldn't even fix some of the most obvious and easily reproducible bugs?

Someone remind me when the next CA game comes out to not buy it until it hits the bargain bin.

[flyinj]

I played a naval battle since installing this patch, and had terrible framerate drops. It seemed to happen randomly, but they would last for about a minute. Anyone else notice this?

It was a 2 vs 2 battle as well... they ran smooth as glass before.

[Chris Nahr]

I like how those patch notes include an entire section just for crash fixes.

[salwon]

I didn't test it extensively, but it looks like the bug with artillery unlimbering right after they limber isn't fixed either.


Fix for problem relating to artillery unlimbering after being ordered to limber


I had forgotten how much of a pain in the ass this was. They STILL haven't gotten it right? It's not rocket science - if I order you to limber, I want you to move, not fire immediately.

Fucking ridiculous.

[Cubit]

based on Tom's front page Fidgit story, CE still can't figure out how to do naval invasions correctly either.

god damn guys...

[NuclearWinter]

The AI does do naval invasions now, plenty of people seem to have experienced it post patch; reports of France invading Britain, Britain setting up colonies in Africa and so on. It's just they need to continue balancing it and getting the frequency right.

Unfortunately it sounds like the patch has broken a whole bunch of other things, so I guess I'll continue waiting for more patches before going back to it :(

[Sepiche]

Still no fix for the bug where your remaining ships can become unselectable if you move ships out of a trade point. Minor bug, but annoying.

After playing with it for a bit, it feels much better overall. You'd think they could have managed to pin down some of the more obvious bugs though.

[Thrag]

I fought a few more battles.

Skirmish mode really is screwed up. Not only don't they run away in the face of the enemy, they stand still in the face of the enemy when given a manual retreat order. Skirmish mode is now "deer in the headlights" mode.

Potential good news however. In my last battle I did some flying battery action with my horse artillery and I didn't have problems with them unlimbering after limbering. I was extra careful to not click on the map before they were fully limbered to make sure it wasn't human error, and even my puckle gun limbered properly.

That said, they absolutely must change the UI for artillery. As soon as the limber order is given the cursor must change to move mode and queue up any move order given. Also, if in the process of limbering and given an unlimber order it would be nice if they didn't have to finish limbering first, and vice versa (yes, this suggestion come entirely from when I accidentally hit limber at a critical moment and despite immediately hitting unlimber I watched as that canister shot I was saving for close range not only wasn't fired, but instead the troops brought the horses in front and gave them to the enemy).

[Soapyfrog]

Very welcome fixes though I am saddened at the list of unaddressed bugs still in the game. That said, I am enjoying the hell out of it.

[PeterK]

I'm in the last decade of a Swedish campaign and I was hit hard by the new unit upkeep. Had to disband at least 5 stacks worth of units in the field plus many town garrisons to get back to positive income. Other than that, I haven't really noticed much of a difference, though it looks like you have to start a new game for some of the changes to take effect.

[Benhur]

I finally got around to trying the new patch last night and I'm still on the fence.

I started a new game as Sweden and made sure I kept recruitment to a minimum so cash isn't a problem so far. As usual, the AI seems to have a problem with declaring war and following up with it. Russia, who was allied with Denmark and Poland, declared war on me early and I was scared... until I saw that Poland and Denmark decided not to join Russia. If they did join (and the AI bothered to invade) I would have been in serious trouble, but I am able to handle Russia without any trouble so far. After Russia declared war they had two very small stacks near my border which never even crossed over to pillage or lay siege. I was able to dispatch them with no trouble and my main army is about to take Moscow. Oh, and one tactical battle didn't go so well for the AI either.

I had 2 regiment of militia and a regiment of horse (no general unit) against two regiments of Russian line infantry. One of the Russian infantry units hid near a wall while the other ran around the battlefield, seemingly lost. It just doesn't seem like anything was fixed, and it pisses me off to think about all the reviews I read that stated the AI was devilish and would "funnel my units into firing arcs" and "exploit my flanks." This AI is doing nothing of the kind and I can't figure out why two crappy regiments of militia would cause line infantry to run around helplessly. The other unit did form a square when my horse unit approached, but my militia simply shot them to pieces. Needless to say I beat up on the Russian infantry with no trouble. After laying siege to Moscow Courland declared war on me and things started to change.

Courland is that unlucky country between Prussia, Sweden, and Russia and it is just begging to be taken over by someone ASAP. However, in all of games they always declare war on me, effectively giving me another province with minimal fuss. After they declared war on me (of course their allies Poland decided not to join in on the fun), I sent a 3/4 stack army full of half decent units to lay siege to their city. They had a full stack of mostly militia and horse and they attacked my besieging force the following turn. They had a 60% advantage according to the green/red bar in the summary window and that is usually no trouble for me. However, this battle went well for the AI and I was quite happy with the result. They had no cannon (I had one unit of artillery) and they approached me en masse instead of piecemeal and it was the first time I can remember the AI doing something like this in Empire. They units rushed me and didn't try to get into a musket duel which was very smart on their part. All of my units started to break and I had to order a general retreat for the first time ever in a game of Empire.

So, based on 2 tactical battles the AI seems to be doing better with large scale armies and I hope the one battle I had wasn't just a fluke. The strategic AI is still disappointing me but I'll see what happens after a few more turns.

[wisefool]

finished a Prussian 25 and a Dutch 25.

-AI is much more aggressive about declaring war on each other. In both games Austria became pretty large. In one it almost pushed the Ottomans off Constantinople.

-trade ships rarely bug out now. I found one way to bug them out - moved two military ships out of a mixed-ship stack. the trade ships remaining in node remained unselectable. Fortunately, a crash taught me quickload fixed those ships.

-tactical seems same to me.

[Aeon221]

finished a Prussian 25 and a Dutch 25.

-AI is much more aggressive about declaring war on each other. In both games Austria became pretty large. In one it almost pushed the Ottomans off Constantinople.

-trade ships rarely bug out now. I found one way to bug them out - moved two military ships out of a mixed-ship stack. the trade ships remaining in node remained unselectable. Fortunately, a crash taught me quickload fixed those ships.

-tactical seems same to me.

In prior builds, I found that trade ships almost always bugged if you attempted to alter the fleet composition (either by addition or subtraction) on a trade node. Simply moving the entire fleet off the node prior to any alteration prevents that from occurring.

[ryan]

After continuing my Prussian campaign of world domination post patch, I was promptly jumped by Sweden and Georgia, which was then followed by a crash to the desktop. I was really looking forward to lashing out and crushing the fools that were sending small armies skirting along my border towns and buildings, but was cruelly denied.

[Cubit]

this is good news i guess:

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/47269/Empire-Total-War-Expanding-With-Free-Units

Creative Assembly announce that a future Empire: Total War patch will include eleven free units.

[Aeon221]

Creative Assembly announce that a future Empire: Total War patch will include eleven free units.

http://www.soundoffcolumn.com/images/_Sports_PS2.jpg

[zengonzo]

Supposedly these units did not take any time away from programmers working on fixes, just artists and the lead dev.

So I can't say I've got a problem with them providing additional free content. Likely trying to keep people interested while they fumble with the bugs.

[copet]

I hope they are useful. Unlike puckle guns :P

[Deadbuffalo]

I started a new campaign this week. I saw england transporting troops in a ship (which was sunk by the french), and a lot more aggressive AI. Territories are changing hands almost every turn now. Persia is becoming a real thorn in Russia's Chechen underbelly. The increased unit costs make winning battles decisively a lot more important too. I really like the changes.

Unfortunately, now I'm getting blue screens randomly throughout the game. Sigh...

[Calistas]

Part 4 of my Barbary States AAR is up :)
http://afteractionreporter.com/2009/05/24/dar-al-islam-a-barbary-states-empire-total-war-aar-%E2%80%93-part-4/

[schurem]

\o/ I cant wait to wade back in. ufc game is distracting me for now. and il2. and supreme commander. and company of heroes. shit lol argh backlog!

[Naeblis]

Next patch will be released next monday, 22 June.


We’ve worked on implementing the multi-threading in the game for multi-core processors and made many optimisations that will also help increase performance on single core machines.

Players will see huge benefits through increased frame rates particularly in land and naval battles.

14 Free Units have been included in this patch, adding a large amount of diversity to the playable factions and the armies the player will face. These units replace ‘generic’ equivalents giving each faction a unique identity on the battlefield. Here is a description of each free unit available in the update:
[list of 14 units]

Additionally the Spanish nation has had a new uniform design to better reflect its historical look.

Audio:

Sound loading has been made asynchronous, so heavy disc access is reduced to a minimum. This makes loading times faster and reduces any instances of ’stuttering’. Unit group sounds have also been improved, for more realistic group movement. The primary sound library (Miles DLL) has been updated to stop occasional clicking. And we’ve added more sound variation for unit deaths and musket fire.

Campaign:

- Several crash bug fixes in saves, movement, agents and logic.

- Various optimisations have been made to AI and path systems to reduce the campaign map turn times.

- When the pirates are destroyed and re-emerge they now maintain a status of at war with all and are unable to enter into diplomatic negotiations.

- Added small ships on domestic trade routes from the trade nodes to home regions moving in the correct direction, i.e. with the flow of trade.

- The AI should now no longer repeatedly sign a diplomatic agreement and then break it the next turn. Treaties are more valuable and adhered to.

- We’ve fixed some border trade agreements allowing greater numbers of bordering factions to properly trade with one another.

- Movement arrows now reflect the range of the selected units, not the whole army/navy.

- AI will no longer counter-offer and ask for more money than the player has available.

- Fixed commerce raiding taking money from blockaded trade routes.

- Fixed navies getting stuck when forced to retreat from ports (tactial retreat).

- Fixed rare inability to attack certain ports.

- Fixed middle mouse button camera drag stopping working occasionally.

- Made emergent factions be at war with the faction they emerged against if that faction is human.

- Fixed various movement extent crashes.

- Changed background income for minor factions.

- Fixed diplomatic relations with emergent factions.

- Tactical withdrawal will now always leave armies on the landmass containing the settlement of a region.

- Changed war score system to make the AI more likely to accept peace.

- Fixed crash when embarking and disembarking armies at ports.

- Fixed trade ships not being correctly registered in trade nodes after splitting forces.

- Fixed government change diplomatic effect.

- Improved commerce raiding display on trade screen.

- Faction specific text is now used in diplomacy.

- Prevent players cancelling the movement of fleeing agents.

Balance changes

Units

- Charge bonus generally increased across the board for all units and melee defence reduced.

- Greater diversification of stats between different unit types designed to emphasise differences and improve balance.

- Redone costs for all units for multiplayer to improve game balance which better reflects the actual battlefield worth of each unit.

- Mob formation added in for Native American, irregular and some skirmisher units.

- Spot distance for light infantry, skirmishers, irregulars, light cavalry and missile cavalry increased allowing them to spot hidden units at longer distances.

- Russian line infantry stats have been boosted to allow them to compete more with other faction’s line infantry.

- Movement speed of all unit types reduced by 10%.

- Ammo for light infantry increased to 20, line to 15.

Land battle morale

- Charge morale bonus reduced from 10 to 4.

- Recent casualties, extended casualties and total casualties morale penalties increased slightly for higher percentages.

- Rear and flank exposed morale penalties increased.

Fatigue

- Fatigue penalty for melee reduced from 18 per tick to 10.

- Running fatigue penalty for heavy and light cavalry reduced from -3/-2 to -2/-1.

Artillery Changes

- Calibration area for cannons and howitzers reduced. Accuracy of non-round shot shot types reduced to compensate.

- Muzzle velocity of round shot for cannons increased to make them fire lower and bounce more, accuracy also increased.

- Lethality of shrapnel pieces reduced to match canister shot, range also reduced to 350.

- Load time for special shot types for howitzers increased slightly, and range reduced to 350.

- Calibration area for mortars increased, accuracy of round shot increased to compensate. Reload time increased slightly.

- Accuracy of 18 lbr horse guard artillery restored to 65.

Hit points of gun trains increased to 50, all guns and caissons to 25.

[RepoMan]

Looks good to me. Only another megapatch or two and maybe I'll actually launch it for the first time!

Yes, my backlogging ways put me right in the "buy on day one, then regret it, but be so busy playing other games that waiting for them to patch it is fine" camp. I funded their patches, basically, and that's cool, whatever. Just keep 'em coming, champs :-D

Would appreciate reports on how much of an improvement the patch is! (once people try it.)

[datter]

Whatever happened to the co-op multiplayer thing?

[Naeblis]

Co-op multiplayer thing is in the same status as alway. It will be launched "post-release" and in beta form.

When they said post-release, they didn't say "one month later". They could launch it in three years and it wouldn't break any promise.

[datter]

I will consider it hype then until such time as it's not.

[salwon]

Even when (if) they actually release it, it will still be hype.

[Sarkus]

I keep telling myself I'm going to fire this up again but then I don't. And I doubt I will early next week either, what with the next Fallout 3 DLC coming out on Tuesday.

Maybe late next week . . .

[datter]

I have the same problem with it. I have played it > 10 times and somehow it's icon is just never under my cursor when I am clicking my way to distraction in the evenings. Not sure why that is, I like it. I think.

[salwon]

I have the same problem with it. I have played it > 10 times and somehow it's icon is just never under my cursor when I am clicking my way to distraction in the evenings. Not sure why that is, I like it. I think.

Haha, I'm the exact same way. I'm almost positive I like this game, I just can't bring myself to play it, ever.

[UncleSmoothie]

I haven't had a gaming PC in about 2 months as I'm in the process of settling in in a new country. And Empire seems to be as compelling as it was when I left it.

[Calistas]

I keep thinking I should fire it up and finish my AAR, but then I remember how the damn thing keeps crashing and I get annoyed!

[Naeblis]

Steam weekend deal. Empire TW 50% off
http://store.steampowered.com/app/10500/

[Aeon221]

So that pretty much confirms my belief that if I wait three months after any release, Steam will have a 50% off deal.

Which is really what I should have done with this game, but oh well.

[Linoleum]

Which of course tempts me to buy it even though I'll never play it. Is there any compelling reason to buy the 'Special Forces Edition'?

[Aeon221]

Which of course tempts me to buy it even though I'll never play it. Is there any compelling reason to buy the 'Special Forces Edition'?

There is not.

[Naeblis]

So that pretty much confirms my belief that if I wait three months after any release, Steam will have a 50% off deal.

Which is really what I should have done with this game, but oh well.

I am also here kicking myself for not waiting. I have only played the tutorials and the RTI short campaign.

[Aeon221]

I am also here kicking myself for not waiting. I have only played the tutorials and the RTI short campaign.

That right there is your mistake. The RTI tutorials are duller than dishwater. I jumped into the main campaign right away and enjoyed it a great deal.

I've played the crap out of the game, it's just my inner greedy capitalist pigdog is annoyed by the unnecessary expenditure of 25$.

But I'm a huge fan of the period, and especially the naval aspects, so I guess it was worth it.

[Rob_Merritt]

There is not.

Is it worth $5?

[CalvinGT]

I just can't believe how incomplete the game was when they shipped it. Something that should have been so fun for me was just completely meh, and now, three months later, I still don't really feel like playing it.

[copet]

I just can't believe how incomplete the game was when they shipped it. Something that should have been so fun for me was just completely meh, and now, three months later, I still don't really feel like playing it.

Exactly my feelings. This has been happening a lot with hyped games lately, and I am losing all confidence in what used to be good developers. I am sure I'm not the only one, but I am curious to see what happens in a few years when (hopefully) people grow wiser to these hype campaigns after experiencing mediocre games.

[Alistair]

Er, so it's a triffic weekend deal, but the next patch is due on Monday. Are the Steamed Total Wars compatible with these patches? Anyone know?

[Cubit]

Er, so it's a triffic weekend deal, but the next patch is due on Monday. Are the Steamed Total Wars compatible with these patches? Anyone know?

since the steam client is required to play all versions of empire, i don't believe this will be a problem.

[Naeblis]

There is only a version of Empire TW, and it is the Steam version. Even the retail dvd is also the Steam version. So, yeah, the update is for that version ;)

[Alistair]

Yay our new overlords!

[Aeon221]

Is it worth $5?

If you get the campaign maps and other included physical media, sure. But from Steam you just get a few extra units.

[Destarius]

If you get the campaign maps and other included physical media, sure. But from Steam you just get a few extra units.

QFT - I don't see how many would pay $10 for 6 units on a download format. There are goodies in the actual physical edition which makes for that $10 difference.

[malkav11]

QFT - I don't see how many would pay $10 for 6 units on a download format. There are goodies in the actual physical edition which makes for that $10 difference.

Except it's a $20 difference, when it's not on 50% sale.

[Aeon221]

Just as an aside, I finally took puckle guns out for a stroll.

W. T. F.

Those guns aren't even close to period appropriate. I feel like I'm unloading a goddamn 88 on the enemy. Set up a few of them and enjoy as they go to town in a serious way on anything within their short range.

Or do like I did and disband them. Either way, wow.

[Sarkus]

Just as an aside, I finally took puckle guns out for a stroll.

W. T. F.

Those guns aren't even close to period appropriate. I feel like I'm unloading a goddamn 88 on the enemy. Set up a few of them and enjoy as they go to town in a serious way on anything within their short range.

Or do like I did and disband them. Either way, wow.

Yeah, it's kind of stupid how CA caved to some geek who decided a footnote in history at best gun should be included in the game.


Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design: one, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were considered to be more damaging and would convince the Turks of the "benefits of Christian civilization".

The "Puckle Gun" failed to attract investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. One newspaper of the period observed, following the business venture's failure, that it has "only wounded those who hold shares therein."

See, and then they screw up implementing the gun as well by not giving the player the round versus square ammo options. I DEMAND THAT CA FIX THE PUCKLE GUN NOW TO MAKE IT HISTORICALLY ACCURATE TO THE GUNS THAT WERE NEVER ACTUALLY USED BY ANYONE AT ANY TIME!

:-)

[MrRyan]

I haven't played Empire for months now, it's just too much of a disappointment. The only real fun I ended up having with the game involved online ship combat, but even that devolved like the land battles. Just as versus matches on land turned into pure mortar wars, ship battles almost always involved rocket ship spam after the first week.

Some of my big gripes: There are not any cool events like the Mongol / Timurid invasions seen in Medieval 2, leader bonuses were hit by a nerf bat, the AI has always been piss poor, grapeshot has always been useless in sea battles, and we still don't have campaign map multiplayer.

It's honestly my least favorite Total War game yet. I keep trying to get myself to play it again, but Medieval 2 is just so much more fun.

[Aeon221]

I haven't played Empire for months now, it's just too much of a disappointment. The only real fun I ended up having with the game involved online ship combat, but even that devolved like the land battles. Just as versus matches on land turned into pure mortar wars, ship battles almost always involved rocket ship spam after the first week.

Some of my big gripes: There are not any cool events like the Mongol / Timurid invasions seen in Medieval 2, leader bonuses were hit by a nerf bat, the AI has always been piss poor, grapeshot has always been useless in sea battles, and we still don't have campaign map multiplayer.

It's honestly my least favorite Total War game yet. I keep trying to get myself to play it again, but Medieval 2 is just so much more fun.

In a lot of ways I agree with you. Medieval 2 has a lot of interesting stuff that I very much so miss from Empire.

For instance, I like how neat the city development model is in Empire, but I miss the specialization options of Med2 -- in Empire, most of the time when a town pops you'll build an industrial building, and if a dock pops a trading port.

I also miss the gorgeous assault maps that Empire is totally lacking. The castles and medieval towns were colorful battlefields with lots of streets for sneaking about in, while the forts of Empire are ugly, dull and useless.

And yeah, the AI is worse than useless, although it never was all that difficult in Medieval either.

[zengonzo]

Most of the improvement seemed to go to the unit management and control - which they did a great job on. But there was certainly neglect to the environment for that expense.

I'm holding out hope for an expansion to provide some more variety to the play and beef up some of the main features, but I still like the game, superficially.

[Naeblis]

Patch is out. I would appreciate feedback from anyone.

[Lake]

And the DLC, Elite Units of the West, is out.

[Aeon221]

And it's the most horseshit DLC since the Horse Armor DLC.

I guess that explains why so many factions were missing elite units with inspiring aura.

[Soapyfrog]

On the other hand at leats it is more appropriately priced than the orginal 6 elite units. 14 units for $3.50.

Personally I would not buy, since I think modders are ultimately going to do a better job.

[Cubit]

To each his own regarding the DLC. To me, $3.50 isn't bad at all for 14 new units. Thats pretty cheap.