Napoleon: Total War - Games

RUSE is probably the closest you will get to a 20th century total war.

They haven't even fucking released the Co-op Grand Campaign they promised, and they're already announcing a new Total War? Fuck you, SEGA.

Stopped at Medieval II and ain't playing again until they're in World War 2: Total War. Tried empires and it was crap.

[QUOTE=Vronkio;16804189]Stopped at Medieval II and ain't playing again until they're in World War 2: Total War. Tried empires and it was crap.[/QUOTE] You're an idiot, FYI. World War 2: Total War? That doesn't make any sense. The point of the total war games is to have massive armies clashing, WWII was hugely urban and small-encounter. The latest period they can go is late 1800's, probably with the American Civil War. Anything after that and it just doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Vronkio;16804189]Stopped at Medieval II and ain't playing again until they're in World War 2: Total War. Tried empires and it was crap.[/QUOTE] Creative Assembly is not the only game developer that makes games with large scale battles. True scale modern age warfare requires too much micromanagement to the point that the only proper way to play it would be looking at your subordinates pushing counters across a map.

I liked E:TW because I don't like ancient history, but I do love the 18th and 19th centuries. That's not to say E:TW isn't unfinished as shit, and now this? Goddamn CA.

I hope it is standalone. ETW by itself is 15 gigs.

God damnit fuck I only bought E:TW in anticipation of a Napoleonic expansion, now I find out it's a separate game? FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU i want my peninsular war damn you

It is an Exspansion, albeit a standalone one

I really would have thought that they would have done something like Shogun 2: Total War or a chinese warring state era one.

here is a nice video interview [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spTZMKIZSrE&feature=channel_page[/media]

So long as it means more bearskin caps, bring it on. It'll probably be like Kingdoms or something like that.

[QUOTE=Zycos;16799838]Or we could just lower the graphics down to Shogun levels. Not very likely however.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'd be for it, I don't really care if it looks like Shogun as long as I have big (100.000+ units) battles.

They said that on the most powerful computers there will be 10,000 units in a battle.

They haven't even delivered the promised co-op grand campaign. What the fuck is this shit. [editline]08:48PM[/editline] Also, just read a few threads on the SEGA forum. Jesus Christ they're so incredibly biased towards Steam, I raged. :C <3 Steam

[QUOTE=acds;16812940]Yeah, I'd be for it, I don't really care if it looks like Shogun as long as I have big (100.000+ units) battles.[/QUOTE] Don't count on it, SEGA and CA have already proved they have no knowledge of anything but the most basic tactics used in the 18th century, and no knowledge of the formations or unit sizes what so ever.

[QUOTE=hurts;16813895]Don't count on it, SEGA and CA have already proved they have no knowledge of anything but the most basic tactics used in the 18th century, and no knowledge of the formations or unit sizes what so ever.[/QUOTE] What Tactics they have got are wrong, like the Square formation. They should absolutely decimate cavalry, but 1 charge can easily break it up. and the cavalry itself is grossly under powered. A whole regiment ( not a measly 120 men) could decend into chaos if a couple of squadrens of cavalry caught it out in Line formation. But no, CA have decided that 120 men in a single line can do a great job against cavalry. I really hope we see and improvement in this with Napoleon.

[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;16817459]What Tactics they have got are wrong, like the Square formation. They should absolutely decimate cavalry, but 1 charge can easily break it up. and the cavalry itself is grossly under powered. A whole regiment ( not a measly 120 men) could decend into chaos if a couple of squadrens of cavalry caught it out in Line formation. But no, CA have decided that 120 men in a single line can do a great job against cavalry. I really hope we see and improvement in this with Napoleon.[/QUOTE] DIY dewd i like it fine, but ATM i'm in love with RTW. i'm not buying this expantion till i get a better com, that's in about 3-4 years.

[QUOTE=Bomimo;16818013]DIY dewd i like it fine, but ATM i'm in love with RTW. i'm not buying this expantion till i get a better com, that's in about 3-4 years.[/QUOTE] DIY? What's that even mean?

I personally really enjoyed Empire, however I hope to see some updates to it's multiplayer (Co-op Campaign) before Napoleons release.

[QUOTE=Mort and Charon;16817459]What Tactics they have got are wrong, like the Square formation. They should absolutely decimate cavalry, but 1 charge can easily break it up. and the cavalry itself is grossly under powered. A whole regiment ( not a measly 120 men) could decend into chaos if a couple of squadrens of cavalry caught it out in Line formation. But no, CA have decided that 120 men in a single line can do a great job against cavalry. I really hope we see and improvement in this with Napoleon.[/QUOTE] Are you kidding me? I played with a friend online and we were Hindus. He placed a massive line of square-formation Hindu troops and slaughtered the enemy's American cavalry with ease.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;16823473]Are you kidding me? I played with a friend online and we were Hindus. He placed a massive line of square-formation Hindu troops and slaughtered the enemy's American cavalry with ease.[/QUOTE] Yes, the cavalry do get slaughtered, but not like they should. The horses shouldn't even run into the goddamn squares if they see them coming. Horses do this- "WAIT THAT'S A WALL OF POINTY THINGS OH SHIT PULL OUT PULL OUT." If they do indeed hit the squares, have you seen what happens when horses run into stakes in this game? The same thing should happen when they hit the square, but with a 85% or so casualty rate, not a 100% casualty rate- that being said, it should also take longer to form squares. At Waterloo, A subordinate of Napoleon's, Marshal Ney, basically wasted all of the French cavalry by charging them in with no infantry or artillery support. Wesley just ordered his men to form squares and the attack failed.

[QUOTE=hurts;16823548]Yes, the cavalry do get slaughtered, but not like they should. The horses shouldn't even run into the goddamn squares if they see them coming. Horses do this- "WAIT THAT'S A WALL OF POINTY THINGS OH SHIT PULL OUT PULL OUT."[/QUOTE] That's kind of the point though, they're following your orders. If you don't want them to run into them, order them not to. To make them automatically not run into the squares would be huge flaw in the game mechanics.

[QUOTE=toxicpiano;16812971]They said that on the most powerful computers there will be 10,000 units in a battle.[/QUOTE] Creative Assembly should team up with [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_software]Massive Software[/url] for a future Total War game. The Battle of Pavia for example had over 40,000 combatants and no game so far has reached the same amount with 3d. (Cossacks 2 can have 64,000 soldiers in a single battle, but it's 2d)

[quote=toxicpiano]They said that on the most powerful computers there will be 10,000 units in a battle.[/quote] They must be improving the graphics or something, because I've had probably 18,000-20,000 soldiers on the field before.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;16823627]That's kind of the point though, they're following your orders. If you don't want them to run into them, order them not to. To make them automatically not run into the squares would be huge flaw in the game mechanics.[/QUOTE] I don't mean like automatically turn around, I mean rear up to try and slow themselves down. [editline]08:05PM[/editline] [QUOTE=lil_n00blett;16823842]They must be improving the graphics or something, because I've had probably 18,000-20,000 soldiers on the field before.[/QUOTE] No you haven't. On ultra size the units are 160-200 men large usually. Unless you did a campaign_unit_multiplier 20.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;16804237]You're an idiot, FYI. World War 2: Total War? That doesn't make any sense. The point of the total war games is to have massive armies clashing, WWII was hugely urban and small-encounter. The latest period they can go is late 1800's, probably with the American Civil War. Anything after that and it just doesn't work.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Tac Error;16804631]Creative Assembly is not the only game developer that makes games with large scale battles. True scale modern age warfare requires too much micromanagement to the point that the only proper way to play it would be looking at your subordinates pushing counters across a map.[/QUOTE] It was sarcasm, it meant that the total war series ended in Medieval II. Learn your shit before you go around calling others idiots. Suckadick

[QUOTE=hurts;16824223]I don't mean like automatically turn around, I mean rear up to try and slow themselves down.[/QUOTE] But if you wanted them to charge anyway, that wouldn't work well. [QUOTE=hurts;16824223]No you haven't. On ultra size the units are 160-200 men large usually. Unless you did a campaign_unit_multiplier 20.[/QUOTE] 120 people per unit x 20 units per army = 2,400 troops 2,400 troops x 8 armies = 19,200 19,200 is between 18,000 and 20,000.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;16827898]But if you wanted them to charge anyway, that wouldn't work well. 120 people per unit x 20 units per army = 2,400 troops 2,400 troops x 8 armies = 19,200 19,200 is between 18,000 and 20,000.[/QUOTE] So you did do that. I've done it with campaign multiplier 10.0, but no higher than that. How bad does it lag?

[QUOTE=hurts;16828206]So you did do that. I've done it with campaign multiplier 10.0, but no higher than that. How bad does it lag?[/QUOTE] I didn't use console or anything, I just went into the options and set unit count to max. For me it doesn't lag really bad, the lowest I get is probably 10 fps, but that's only if I deliberately try to get as many units on-screen at once as possible.