Slashdot Mirror
Early Praise For Empire: Total War
CVG had a chance to preview Empire: Total War, the latest in Creative Assembly's popular strategy series. This installment focuses on a time period which includes the Industrial Revolution and the struggle for US independence. CVG praises the intuitive interface and the improved AI, as well as the level of detail shown in large-scale battles. Quoting:
"With a single mouse click I changed my troops' attack orders to melee and sent a sea of blue uniforms sweeping down the hill at the enemy. Zooming into the action revealed a previously unmatched level of battlefield realism and detail, with each motion captured soldier actively seeking out an opponent before engaging in a mortal shoving and stabbing match. Men toppled into the mud, squirming with terror before receiving a deft bayonet jab to the windpipe. After a titanic, 20-minute struggle the tide turned my way with the enemy hightailing it thanks in no small part to a bullet to the British general's head that broke his men's morale."
I hope they finally improved empire management. That's the thing that was most lacking in the whole series, and it only deteriorated with each succession.
For example: Rome Total War became unplayable to me once I realized I have to stage rebellions in my own cities, then conquer them in order to remain profitable.
Does it come preloaded with it?
...are they making an effort to be historically accurate?
I've always liked the Total War series (since Shogun) but must admit to having been caught referring to some of the "history" I learned from the games. Rome:TW is particularly bad in this regard. Granted that the player can drastically alter the outcome of history, for instance by having a massive Portuguese empire take over all of Europe by 1250 A.D., but it would still be nice to be playing with actual historically significant events and persons.
And I have a lot of hope for this one, since a good chunk of it will deal with American history which many of the developers probably know a bit more about than Roman, Japanese, or medieval European history.
Also, I wonder whether we can now start looking forward to, say, Normandy: Total Way, which would be terrifyingly awesome. As the technology has gotten better, the series has tended to move forwards in time, with the exception of Medieval 2 which revisited a time period that had already been covered.
Trust me, kids; don't drink and post.
War faring is so 2008...
I hope they fix the unit AI. In the last couple of iterations, my men spent more time running around in circles trying to 'stay in formation' than actually charging. I think there is more fun to be had giving orders when they are actually being obeyed.
*runs*
Its level of addictiveness is next door to crack.
I remember many weekends I've wasted with the previous games in the series. Once clocked in 20hours of continuous play. Looks like I might finally be able to break my record once this gets released.
The good thing though is that Online gameplay is not it's "major" component so you wont be quitting your job/school for this.
Oh my, how games have progressed since Capt. Kaper (1981) and North & South (1989) which stole away so many hours of my youth!
From time to time, I am utterly amazed at how detailed they can make things these days. I used to say that, with the advent of incredible (or rather, finally credible) graphics, games tended to not put as much value in actual gameplay. The games I've played this last decade have, therefore, been mainly the "good ole ones" as well as "seemingly simple" games (in the way that, say, chess is) with modest graphics. But seeing this, I realize that it's time to update my views.
"Good news, everyone!"
What does historical accuracy bring to a game? I mean many games aren't set in the real world at all. Of those that are, it is a twisted version of reality that bears only somewhat of a resemblance. The Rainbow Six games would be an example. Terrorists have not, in fact, attacked Las Vegas and taken over hotels and an elite multinational force is not on standby to stop them. Doesn't mean it wasn't an amusing story for a shooter though.
Well same kind of deal here. The story is based in realty, the many different kingdoms of that time. The sides are also based on real factions, the map is based on the world and so on. However it isn't a story of what happened, just a stage for a game. It isn't a recreation of the literal events, simply an alternate universe inspired by them.
So who cares if it is accurate? The question should be if it is fun, and it is. I'd be all up on them for accuracy if that was what they were claiming. If they said "This is intended to be a completely accurate historical simulation of the Roman Civil War." Well I'd be on their case. However they say (quoting off the box): "Command the greatest armies of all time in Rome: Total War. Lead legions of Roman allied forces and their bloodthristy Barbarian opponents in realistic, bone-crushing battles. Experience the ultimate in 3-D cinematic action and strategically determine your path of war in an epic clash of brains, brawn, and the sheer force of will, to build your empire and control your destiny!"
Doesn't sound like they are pimping a historically accurate simulation, sounds like they are pimping a war game set in Rome. I see nothing wrong with this.
You have to remember that for games, reality often has to take a back seat because reality is often not fun (and also often not fully simulatable). In the case of a Roman game, well if you had historically accurate armies it would likely be impossible to win as anyone but Rome. There's a reason Rome was so successful in conquering. It isn't as though if you took some guy who plays video games and put them in charge of the army of a nation Rome conquered that they'd be able to make things turn out so differently.
No matter what, you are always going to face limitations in a game. You can't make a game a perfect copy of reality. The sandbox only goes so far, at some point there are boundaries. Thus I don't find it useful to try to hold games to any arbitrary realism standard unless they set out to try and be realistic. They should be fun. So long as they are that, who cares about the rest? Pure made up worlds are great, different versions of our own world are great.
It is quite possible to make a certain battle or a small campaign historically accurate, but you can't just make something like the rise and fall of the roman empire accurate. Else you'd win. Simply and plainly. You would already have won before the whole thing starts.
First of all, you know the geography of Europe. If you don't, there's accurate maps available, something that the Romans would have sold their firstborn and a few more things for. You wouldn't just go and waste a sizable amount of your resources by trying to "bring peace" to the Germania because you think the world ends where Poland is today. You wouldn't go and listen to some augur telling you you're gonna fall off the world by sailing through the street of Gibraltar.
Another important aspect of Rome's success was that most of the empires they conquered were anything but organized. Rome had a pretty strong bureaucracy behind it that could support vast armies of professional soldiers, something no other empire of the time could. Most of their enemies were smaller, badly organized tribes and empires that didn't really have the same centralized structure of the Roman Empire.
And this goes on throughout all the ages and games you could make out of them. People, great people, all made great mistakes in the way they waged war and led their countries. Spain wasted insane amounts of money trying to find a way to the far east, as did Portugal (one trying to find a way towards the west, the other trying to sail around Africa), and both just realized that it's unprofitable to do that. You know that, and you would most likely not waste your gold on such endeavours. Instead you'll invest in gunpowder and research the weapons behind it because you know that's where the future of warfare is. You would probably not search for the philosopher's stone, though, or try to turn shit into gold.
And so on.
You cannot create an accurate game of this scope and be true to history. You have to sacrifice at least part of it to make the game balanced and playable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think these will be the most interesting part of the game, I remember naval battles being present in a similar game, though I can't remember the name. The main issue is the plain difficulty of them, with the multiple clicks required to do the most basic of functions in terms of shooting. My preference will be that they maintain the difficulty rather than make it too easy and basic, I'd love to put my sailing knowledge to get close hauled and then fire abeam to my enemy!
...It's a significant buzzkill when you get up-close to in-game buildings, trees etc and they are way off scale, because of lazy developers/artists. Rome:TW suffered a bit from this, but the worst culprits are always flight sims.
i like the series since it's first implementation: Shogun.
But the AI was never something to write home about. Neither on the tactical nor on the strategic level it ever posed a threat. So any improvement here would be a very welcome. But i have my doubts. I'm playing quite a lot of strategy games. I never found an AI which
Some AIs have shown a little of one or the other, but none was ever strong on those issues. Typical "human" cheats against comuter opponents are:
These are only examples. What i miss in an AI is the impression, that the AI has some kind of strategic plan. AIs never try to mislead me. So there is a lot of room for improvement.
I love beating my oponent.... so i hope the AI doesn't get too strong :-))).
CU on the battlefield, Martin
You reply in good faith and for good intentions but you are somewhat mistaken,
First, Romans did NOT field regiments of archers. However, following Gaius Marius' reforms, in legions a cohort (8-10 centuries of 60 men) could have archers attached. These were generally placed as an archery shield in front of the front maniples and retracted when enemies approached. More usual, however, was simply the legionaries throwing their pilum javelin before equipping their gladius short sword.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups. Romans DID use mounted infantry though, and this could also perhaps harass enemy skirmish flankers. Stirrups wasn't invented until approximately the 7th or 8th Century. Thus, cavalry does not mean "mounted soldier". Also, the Roman social hierarchy included a "knight" class. This is not to be interpreted anachronistically as of a kind with the medieval knights, it simply means a social status above Plebeian but beneath the Patrician strata eligible for election to Senate.
I admit I enjoyed Rome:TW and Shogun:TW, but I have had my doubts about the historical accuracy of the TW titles. Of course they should first and foremost be fun games, so I can understand that if something needs to suffer to preserve the enjoyment of playing, historical accuracy might go by the boards. My problem is that I think a lot of people learn their "historical" facts from sources such as TV, Movies and Games - and none of those media have the slightest interest in presenting objective facts.
I expect this game will be easier to win as the Americans and harder (or possibly impossible) to win as the British, will badly mangle even US history, and will only help firmly cement mythological knowledge of the American Revolutionary war, rather than anything historically accurate. Thats unfortunate.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Romans DID field cavalry units, and they fought mounted without stirrups.
A couple of famous examples are Cannae during the Punic Wars (216BC). And at Pharsalus during Caeser's civil war (48BC), where Caeser's troops used spears against an enemy cavalry charge.
Stirrups are needed for the longer medieval lance and making riding a bit easier. But it is perfectly possible to fight on horse back without them.
The mounted infantry was more common in the later era (post 300AD), especially for patrols.
Secondly, Romans did NOT field any cavalry units. Cavalry fight from horseback, and cohesive military cavalry usage requires stirrups.
This has already been corrected, but I thought I'd add that if you look up Cataphract and Clibanarii on Wikipedia you can find images of ancient monuments showing heavy armored lancers going all the way back to the Hellenistic era.
These were the shock troops of several Near Eastern empires right up through the Byzantine period, including the Romans before the empire split. Generally both horse and rider were armored, sometimes all over, other times on the front side only, and the armor varied greatly in material by time and nation, from mail or lammenates to mere quilted cloth. They charged en masse, in closer formation than western European knights did. In many of the armies they were regulars, trained to fight in formations. In some they were also equipped with a bow for dual-purpose work.
The clibanarii were a specifically Roman variant. The name is derived from the term for a little iron oven, and is taken to indicate that they wore some kind of plate armor.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I think that bothers me somewhat. It's only in the campaign, but none the less seems... well, somewhat cheap. Especially given that basically you'll be paying more for the extra units. But being such a fanboy as I am, I'll go for the special forces edition, and try to figure out which of the 3 'pre-order specials' I'd rather have.
But I'm not sure I like this trend in games towards 'special editions'.