Should I get E:TW?

[conception]

I just got a new computer and a whole new world of games has been opened to me that I could not enjoy before due to a poor system. I remember Empire being a huge buzz last year and it actually inspired me to check out Rome, which I really enjoyed and still have, though my buggy old system started crashing during the campaigns so much that I never finished one. I've heard some good things about improvements that were made in Empire, but I've also heard that it was tremendously buggy and had some flaws upon release, leading to a tremendous amount of backlash against the sites that posted very positive reviews.

One thing I've learned about games is that they tend to be released with holes and flaws that are patched up later on. Has Empire received any patches that have fixed a lot of the issues that lead many to be critical of it, or does it still run nearly as rough as it did upon release. I'm trying to figure out if the negative buzz is just due to poor stability upon release, or poor stability still.

 

[conception]

I forgot to add that I just learned about Napolen's release today, but I'd rather buy Empire if it actually ran stable because its probably a bit cheaper and slightly easier to run.

 

[Maniacal]

I picked up Empire the first time it was 50% off, and well patched. They fixed most of the problems, its on par with previous Total War games, and I have quite enjoyed it.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8989751&postcount=3113
There are some screenshots from am mutliplayer battle I had with someone today, there is a multiplayer campaign for Empire, but it is in public beta and I have not had enough interest in it to try it out yet.

Napoleon is better optimized than Empire (it runs better) from what I have heard.


Apparently the price of Empire has dropped to $29.99 on steam (originally $49), while Napoleon is $40. Pretty decent pricing now, and the pack for all of Empire's DLC is about $17 and includes the Warpath campaign, and makes a pretty decent expansion pack now and includes the Special Forces (special edition) units.

Either one should be good, I have not played Napoleon but there are no major issues with it that I know of. They are total war games and probably the best RTS games set in the 1700 and 1800s (there aren't many, most games set in that period are TBS).

 

[LightSpectra]

No. Avoid Empire.

 

[Maniacal]

No. Avoid Empire.

Care to explain? (If you have in other threads, I've forgotten).

I don't find it any worse than the other vanilla total wars.
Nor do I find it a lot better either though.

 

[Ajidica]

Although Empire isn't the best total war game (for some reason my line infantry love line dancing around grapeshot firing cannons instead of charging) but it is pretty fun if you can pick it up for a decent price.

 

[LightSpectra]

Care to explain? (If you have in other threads, I've forgotten).

Abysmal AI, no music, broken pathfinding, you can send full stacks through the arctic circle in two rounds, one face for every single unit in the entire game, the dumbest siege battle mechanics ever conceived, severe bugs and CTD issues, etc.

 

[Maniacal]

Abysmal AI, no music, broken pathfinding, you can send full stacks through the arctic circle in two rounds, one face for every single unit in the entire game, the dumbest siege battle mechanics ever conceived, severe bugs and CTD issues, etc.

I have not noticed the AI being any worse than in previous games. Pathfinding is the same too.

And what arctic circle?

One face while I dislike too isn't really any different than the previous games (Rome's units only have ONE GUY CLONED 100 times!).

I do, however, agree the sieges are as broken as they have ever been in any previous total war game pre-patch. CA really dropped the bomb with sieges, trying to defend non-straight walls is ridiculous, though the rest of the siege AI isn't any worse than previous games either.

I have not had any more CTDs or bugs than previous total war games, and nothing I have found to be major problems. Its been more stable than Oblivion, Morrowind and Fallout 3.

No idea about the music, I usually let it fade into the background noise in my head anyways, but it is easy to add your own.

 

[conception]

If Napoleon is truly more optimized than Empire, than it may be something that I could look at. I'm just not entirely convinced my system is going to run either very well, so I've thought about the cheap ones.

A couple minor gameplay flaws don't make a game unplayable or broken to me. I've never played any game, no matter what the quality, that didn't have a couple things wrong with it. I'm more worried about actual software stability, CTD's and system lock-ups. That is one thing I can't deal with.

I've read enough about Empire to know that, having enjoyed Rome, there are certainly aspects of the gameplay that will be enjoyable.

 

[LightSpectra]

I tried Napoleon, and it's... quite easy. The AI is improved but still rather poor. As France in 1805, I captured Vienna just by marching Napoleon straight through Bavaria without a fight.

So perhaps France's power was exaggerated, so I tried the reverse as Austria, and I ended up killing Napoleon and Davout in the same battle, outnumbered 2:1 about ten rounds into it. Now of course I'm not expecting computer AI to be smarter than a human being, but marching your units straight into a death trap is something the AI should know how to avoid.

 

[Ajidica]

Has the AI ever been able to avoid a death trap? In RTW (and MTW2, but not as often as I was playing a mod where archers are nerfed), I would sit my archers on one end of the map and watch the AI futily try to catch them. Won many battles against the Seleucids as Egypt like that. Its even harder in Musket warfare where any charge could become a death trap if not coordinated correctly.

 

[kibbles]

Has the AI ever been able to avoid a death trap? In RTW (and MTW2, but not as often as I was playing a mod where archers are nerfed), I would sit my archers on one end of the map and watch the AI futily try to catch them. Won many battles against the Seleucids as Egypt like that. Its even harder in Musket warfare where any charge could become a death trap if not coordinated correctly.

Occasionly the AI seems to smarten up enough to NOT run into a wall of sharpened wood, or try a firefight with canister shot cannons, but not often. I remember during a siege, one section of the wall was destroyed. I had my infantry and cannons dig in around it. The AI charged into wildly and was utterly destroyed via canister shot and mass volleys. It was very entertaining!

 

[W|M]

What was most entertaining for me was slaughtering everyone with the Huns horse archers in RTW BI - They were so overpowered...

Anyway, Empire is pretty good, although the system requirements are ridiculous, I needed a fan to play it at the lowest settings. Also, steam (automatically comes with it). seriously, its nearly as bad as hitler and stalin put together. One auto update was the breaking point, and my computer can never run ETW again...

 

[Ajidica]

I've never found steam that bad. It was actualy quite nice when I had to reinstall Empire and couldn't find my disc. Steam can be a bit annoying when it autoupdates without you knowing so you start wondering all your mods start crashing randomly.

 

[BurnEmDown]

You can make steam start offline mode always, that way it won't check for updates, however to play multiplayer online you'll have to log in to steam.

 

[e350tb]

Napoleon is better optimized than Empire (it runs better) from what I have heard.

It doesn't. Though the difference is usually miniscule, Napoleon seems to stutter a little on larger battles where Empire did not. Then again, that might be my insistance on putting the infantry at full graphics so I can drool at British Foot.

 

[aronnax]

I hated Empire. It could be because I played the glitchy version. But I hate it none the less.

Firstly, it is an eyesore... I despise the campaign map. While I know that graphics ain't everything, I felt that the campaign map looked like it was done with claydough. Everything felt kiddish. Especially the bright colours.

Secondly, the battles. Maybe I'm not that good of a gunpowder warfare strategist. But the cannons never seem to hit where you want to aim, the units are so to respond to my click. They never do that Fire-reload-forward thing when I tell them to...

The siege battles, both attacking and defending was seriously bad. It seems like forts were easier to defend in MTW2 Than in Emp... And the cannons on the damn fort never work.

Dont buy empire.

 

[Maniacal]

Siege battles are still pretty meh, but I like the campaign map and doesn't have any major problems with it besides wishing it had a few more regions, and cannons are NOT supposed to be accurate as they are not!

 

[aronnax]

Siege battles are still pretty meh, but I like the campaign map and doesn't have any major problems with it besides wishing it had a few more regions, and cannons are NOT supposed to be accurate as they are not!

They are un-usable! They don't do anything in battle! They never seem to play a part in my battles or that of the IA either.

Oh and the regions are perhaps the most ugly thing I have ever seen, I hate the way they carve such Big and small regions so randomly. You got the whole of France as one province and also Alsace Lorraine. The way they divided Germany is hideous... And there no aesthetically pleasing way to conquer new land.

That and of course the way they divide the land is horrible. France doesn't fall with Paris. Spain is not just Madrid... So on and so forth.

 

[Maniacal]

The regions are kind of lame yes, however taking the capital was a way to force the enemy to make peace (except the AI is still diplomatically ******ed), plus you still have to HOLD the region from all of the rebellions.

Artillery IS useful, get a few batteries up and they can help lower morale, and later on when you unlock better area of attack rounds to use they can help remove some enemies on their way. It isn't going to rape the enemy nor should it nor did it.