What do you think of Empire TW?

[LightSpectra]

Well there's your problem, you should NEVER auto a battle unless you outnubmer the enemy at LEAST 4 to one. If not 5-1 or more. Secondly, natives are NOT weak little wimps, they are good fighters.

And I'm fine with that, I just wish it worked the other way around. 1200 v. 300 battles should never go in favor of the latter.

 

[Maniacal]

Unless they are SPARTANS!

I don't trust auto-resolve, it somehow always ends up sending my siege weapons/catapults/artillery into melee.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

The only major bug that annoys me is the naval invasion bug, ruins many aspects of the game - Europeans won't reinforce their colonies, makes the caribbean a massive money maker with no risk of invasion, French and English will never colonise India, and London is never threatened.

What's the deal with this? Was the game never designed to have naval invasions or is this issue just a bug waiting to be fixed?

It does feel pretty exploitative leaving cities barely guarded because you know the AI won't come by sea. Especially in this game since it seems that you can transport huge armies with just a couple ships. Actually, I haven't noticed any limits yet - a single ship seems able to carry a full stack of units.

Or an awesome wall of spears. I managed this with pikemen for the first time yesterday. It was spectacular. A fully fresh and eager cavalry charge on my army turned into a routed regiment in a matter of seconds.

What do you need to recruit pikeman? I haven't gotten that far yet. I was thinking that line infantry seem pretty weak against them. It's not that they die rather easily, but the calvary go right through them and into whatever they were guarding.

It's little things that I do and I'm not sure I understand what their effect is exactly. Like when I send a gentleman to a university or a college, I'm not sure which one I should send him to, and how much it really helps my research. I need numbers, a civilopedia, something. I feel like when I first started playing Civ, trying to figure out what "shields" meant and how they were produced.

I agree, we're spoiled with Civ spelling everything out with numbers and percentages. There's no question what affect a new building or unit has when you can write out the math.

 

[Rub'Rum]

What's the deal with this? Was the game never designed to have naval invasions or is this issue just a bug waiting to be fixed?

It does feel pretty exploitative leaving cities barely guarded because you know the AI won't come by sea. Especially in this game since it seems that you can transport huge armies with just a couple ships. Actually, I haven't noticed any limits yet - a single ship seems able to carry a full stack of units.

I don't know, but when I started a grand campaign with Britain, the advisor told me about what I should do as Britain. I think she mentioned that I should be careful to protect my home island too... That would indicate at least that the game developers meant for actual invasion danger to exist. Unless the designers went "whatever, like they'll ever know that they can't get invaded...", which seems unlikely.

What do you need to recruit pikeman? I haven't gotten that far yet. I was thinking that line infantry seem pretty weak against them. It's not that they die rather easily, but the calvary go right through them and into whatever they were guarding.

I don't know what you need. When I started playing as Britain, I had access to pikemen right away. They're really difficult to use and most people don't like them much as they can be pretty weak. It's only useful if you can pull off a defense against a cavalry charge... And even then you have to make sure the formation is ready before they hit. And all units are painfully slow at changing formation.

I find this particular fact sort of disappointing, I mean, maybe it's realistic, but the AI is super fast at reacting to your changes. Like when all these natives are hanging juuuuuust outside of my cannons' range, and as soon as I try to bring the cannons closer (making them unusable in the process) they start charging at me... So I put the cannons back on the ground to shoot them now that they're in range, but the millisecond I click it they charge back outside of range. I mean, yeah, they would actually do that in real life, but can they take more than a millisecond to figure it out. It's a direct link between my clicking finger and them changing direction.

Same thing happens when I try to put my pikemen in a wall to receive a cavalry charge, or when I put my linesmen in square formation to defend against cavalry charges... They're facing me so I decide "let's prepare with this formation", as soon as I click the formation buttons, the enemy cavalry just changes direction and goes somewhere else (even when they're already charging sometimes), around my defensive formation, and attacks the cannons that I was trying to defend.

Sometimes you think "I'll get a volley out first". So you do that, you kill a few cavalry, then you click on square formation, but there's no way in hell it happens fast enough and you see your guys flying out the screen.

 

[_alphaBeta_]

And all units are painfully slow at changing formation.

Well I agree, but I also think it's somewhat historically accurate. My issue is not the speed that they change formation (physically walking), but there's a delay when they're standing there before firing. I'm not talking reloading either. It's like they're simply deciding what to do with their loaded weapons even though a line of calvary is about to smash into them.

Not sure if that's by design or just a buggy routine of the game. Still, I think there was considerable delay, historically, to turn a group of troops and get orders conveyed.

 

[Maniacal]

Oh they certainly meant for the naval AI to work, it just hasn't been finished.

 

[LightSpectra]

Other features I would like to see, whether by mod or patch:

6. Peaceful annexation. If a one-region faction is "very friendly" with you, or is in a war with another nation and has very few troops, the option to peacefully join your empire should be available.

7. Titles. For example: if you control all of India, your monarch should gain an ancillary that says "emperor of India" that gives him one more star, or something similar.

8. When you successfully unite all of India, Germany, Italy (if Venice, Genoa, Malta or the Papal States become playable), your flag and faction name should change, and your loyalty and happiness in all of those regions should increase.

9. Being able to join rebels, and not just the ones when your capital revolts. C'mon! I wanna be Ireland! In fact, more playable factions in general. I'd like to play as Denmark, all the tiny Germanic and Italian factions, Persia,

10. Diplomacy needs to be fixed. You shouldn't become hated by every faction when you collect ten regions. Napoleon conquered most of Europe, and he managed to retain good relations with Russia (until they opened up trade with Britain) and the U.S. for the most part. Also, enemy factions should be more open for peace when you decimate their army. Too often the case is that I will destroy all of some tiny region's army, leaving them with only town guards, but they won't settle for peace. Which is ridiculous.

 

[cephalo]

Too often the case is that I will destroy all of some tiny region's army, leaving them with only town guards, but they won't settle for peace. Which is ridiculous.

Lol, I think every strategy game I've ever played in my adult life has this same problem, and I always wonder if the next game I buy will fix it. There are many examples in history where a state will fight to the end rather than outright surrender, but to refuse a peace offer when you have no army? Thats a no-brainer.

My theory is that methods to quantize 'power' are always wrong. It's common for certain buildings to add 'power' to the owning faction. Since players are usually forced to find success with fewer troops and less building development against an AI that cheats in this regard, the AI thinks because it has a powerful building it has a chance against your lesser builidings and army, even though you have beaten him in 20 succesive battles with inferior numbers.

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah, I keep assassinating diplomats in my EB game as Rome from Koinon Hellenon (one of the three greek factions, and in reality more of large alliance like NATO) demaning 56,000 mnai, despite them having lost EVERYTHING on the mainland and only having Rhodes and one city in asia minor.

 

[Dachs]

6. Peaceful annexation. If a one-region faction is "very friendly" with you, or is in a war with another nation and has very few troops, the option to peacefully join your empire should be available.

Can you think of an OTL example of this?

8. When you successfully unite all of India, Germany, Italy (if Venice, Genoa, Malta or the Papal States become playable), your flag and faction name should change, and your loyalty and happiness in all of those regions should increase.

Game ends in 1799. Nationalism is not widespread.

10. Diplomacy needs to be fixed. You shouldn't become hated by every faction when you collect ten regions.

That is actually a far better simulation of history than not having it around.

Napoleon conquered most of Europe, and he managed to retain good relations with Russia (until they opened up trade with Britain) and the U.S. for the most part.

Napoleon also sold the US a lot of territory. He did not particularly have good relations with Russia.

Also, enemy factions should be more open for peace when you decimate their army. Too often the case is that I will destroy all of some tiny region's army, leaving them with only town guards, but they won't settle for peace. Which is ridiculous.

I agree with this.

 

[LightSpectra]

Can you think of an OTL example of this?

I don't know what OTL stands for, but the southern Germanic states peacefully joined Prussia after the Franco-Prussian War. Also, the Texas Annexation to the U.S. was completely voluntary.

Game ends in 1799. Nationalism is not widespread.

Eh, I'll concede this.

That is actually a far better simulation of history than not having it around.

True, but it would be both more accurate and more playable were it not so drastic.

Napoleon also sold the US a lot of territory. He did not particularly have good relations with Russia.

Napoleon was popular in the U.S. for more than just the Louisiana Purchase. His ascension to power ended the Quasi-War with relatively little blood.

As for Russia: they held an alliance for a short period of time, even though Russian troops were decimated at several occasions by Napoleon. In the game, this would be represented as -200 relations, and they would only accept a two-round alliance in exchange for three regions.

 

[Dachs]

I don't know what OTL stands for, but the southern Germanic states peacefully joined Prussia after the Franco-Prussian War. Also, the Texas Annexation to the U.S. was completely voluntary.

Neither of which happened during the period. OTL = our/original timeline.

Napoleon was popular in the U.S. for more than just the Louisiana Purchase. His ascension to power ended the Quasi-War with relatively little blood.

You are overrating how well Napoleon was liked in the United States as opposed to a dislike of Britain.

As for Russia: they held an alliance for a short period of time, even though Russian troops were decimated at several occasions by Napoleon. In the game, this would be represented as -200 relations, and they would only accept a two-round alliance in exchange for three regions.

Sounds realistic to me.

 

[Maniacal]

Except that regions are so freakishly huge in ETW

 

[germanicus12]

An example of Peaceful annexation in our time line, Texas joining the United States.

 

[LightSpectra]

Neither of which happened during the period. OTL = our/original timeline.

Would you care to enlighten me as to which innovation in the 19th century allowed for peaceful annexation, that was not available in the 1700s?

 

[Maniacal]

An example of Peaceful annexation in our time line, Texas joining the United States.

1845 is, while in the same timeline as we are, 46 years after Empires ends and, for me, 144 years before I was born!

 

[Dachs]

Would you care to enlighten me as to which innovation in the 19th century allowed for peaceful annexation, that was not available in the 1700s?

Here you go, enjoy.

 

[LightSpectra]

Here you go, enjoy.

Nationalism wasn't why Texas joined the U.S. In fact, the nationalist faction in the Republic of Texas was firmly against the annexation.

 

[Dachs]

Nationalism wasn't why Texas joined the U.S. In fact, the nationalist faction in the Republic of Texas was firmly against the annexation.

The Texan nationalist faction in the Republic of Texas was firmly against the annexation. That's more particularism than nationalism, and you do get particularism (but not nationalism) in the 18th century.

 

[LightSpectra]

The Texan nationalist faction in the Republic of Texas was firmly against the annexation. That's more particularism than nationalism, and you do get particularism (but not nationalism) in the 18th century.

Alright then; therefore, why can't peaceful annexations be in E:TW?