The Official ETW Criticism Thread

[Emperor Hantscher]

Well first of all I love this game. I thought I would make that clear and hopefully CA reads this post! My main complaint with Empire is the lack of diplomatic features. Sure the obvious things like AI could be improved as well but my biggest peeve is diplomacy. In my current campaign playing as Morocco I have conquered all of North Africa and the Middle east from Persia as north as Anatolia. I also have Texas as a North American colony. My goal in North America was to fight an Anti-Piracy naval war in the Caribbean, and ensure peace in the new world. Anyway, Genoa attacked Louisiana, one of my trusted allies in N.A. Poland, Italians, Spain, New Spain, Hanover all joined to pick on small Louisiana and I felt I had to stick up for them. All those nations where allies to me as well and trade partners so if I went to war with all of them, my empire would be sunk so fast because all income would disappear. The problem was I had no way to diplomatically address the situation and protect my ally. I sent a large army outside New Orleans to deter attack but obviously the AI didn't get it. Spain attacked and I was forced to go to war with my ally Spain. As it turns out the war was much fun and all other nations ended their war with Louisiana after I attacked and crippled Spain. So I guess in a way I accomplished my goal of protecting my ally, but my economy suffered and hasn't yet recovered.

Now Poland and Maratha are at war, the two nations combine to bring me 25,000$ in trade income per turn. In their war they are constantly blockading ports, which from time to time will stop bringing the trade to my nation!!! There is no point for me to go to war with one of them to keep trade routes open, because trade would stop with war anyways!! I wish there was a way for me to say "Stop Blocking the DAMN PORTS !!!"


I sure hope CA goes back to Empire after Rome II and make it a better game. Empire sure could be alot better. I know some of you will say " why not play Napoleon it has more diplomacy." That is true but I tried Napoleon and I just don't like it like Empire, Napoleon seems far to "linear" Play as the Coalition and beat France, yada yada yada. I like the way Empire allows me to build "My Empire" how I want it, it is much more free. Could CA not just update the game to add more diplomatic features. Some I think would be the best

-Trade embargo
-lift blockade
-ask to control an army or navy for set # of turns(applies only to allies or protectorates, I hate when ally's sit by while i get bum rushed by 4 full-stacks)
-Attack Faction
-Peace with faction
-Request Naval assistance ( if your nation does not have the capability to build an adequate navy, you could ask your ally to build one and help lift blockades on your ports or transport your troops, this one would have been helpful in my Warpath Campaign since I could not build a navy but my Vassal Colombia could)
-Accept or I will attack
- an overall better system(Factions will have a better memory of things you have done for them, they will have an idea of how they stack up against you, so If I own half the world and the other faction has one measly territory they will mostly do whatever I say) I often pay tribute to my small allies to help make them strong, I had so much money I thought if I payed Louisiana 15,000$ a turn for 10 turns they would use it to build more armies and defend themselves.....I was wrong. And if they remembered what I had done for them they would be far more likely to do things for me, like give me troops and ships because I already payed them 150,000$.

[PitaboyDK]

I would also like to see better diplomacy, as Emperor Hantscher states. Looking at the Victoria, HoI and EU series, there's alot of diplomacy options.
Things like those stated above, and also something close to expeditionary armies, that would futher enchance the "EMPIRE" feeling.

[the new username]

The representation of the conflicts that plagued europe on this time...Empire needs more diplomacy. Also, That spanish motherer Charles II that doesn't die in 1700 and thus War of the spanish sucession doesn't happen, straining the players from a fun part.

Also, moar regions.

[panzer.tc]

Despite my own interest in ETW, I play it more often (currently) than the other games I enjoy like Civilization V. However, ETW will NEVER rise above a 7 (on a scale from 1 to 10), in my mind because of ALL of the things that are wrong with it – that CA can’t bring itself to correct OR won’t release the modding tools necessary for those who can to fix them themselves.
Some of these issues I have railed about before in these forums; but I rehash them here as a means of consolidating them.


I am not a computer programmer, though I can write small macros to accomplish tasks in the computer networking world that is my profession.
But most of the issues I have with this game stem from what I call ‘lazy programming’. For example, is it that hard to select images of men for various positions to actually look somewhat around the same age as the ‘in game’ age of the individual?
See Screenshot “a very old 18 year old”
Really, is it that hard to find a portrait that looks like an 18 year old? In most cases it isn’t like they’re using historically accurate portraits in the first place. Lazy Programming.

Second, how many players have had issues where certain units (for me mostly artillery units) just stop moving and freeze in place.
See Screenshot “unit stuck”
Usually this problem occurs when units move through ‘portable’ terrain such as field fortifications, as in the screenshot, however – I have had cavalry units just freeze and sit there for no known reason whatsoever.
The example in the screenshot, I ordered that artillery unit to move shortly after the battle started as the enemy was moving towards my far right flank, and it just sat there in that position for the remainder of the battle – useless to my army. Every other unit is capable of moving around terrain that it cannot move through, so why does this occur? Lazy Programming.

Next, when they don’t freeze and stop moving, they DIE.
See Screenshot “unit dies from moving”
In a battle some time ago, I was involved in a battle where it became necessary to withdraw my right flank back (refusing my right flank). But in the process of moving my Russian 6-gun light artillery battery (DMUC) crossed over some breastworks. Rather than just moving around the terrain it couldn’t pass through, rather than just passing over (as it attempted to do), the unit didn’t become stuck and freeze, NO – three of the guns were destroyed and the crews of those guns fell over and died! WTF!
I didn’t tell the unit which route to take, I merely selected the unit then designated where I wanted it to setup, now with any other unit it would just move around any difficult terrain that it couldn’t pass through. But this unit simply died, there were no enemy units nearby – and no one was shooting at this unit. Lazy Programming.

Freeloaders, raise your hand if you HAVEN’T seen this before. This one isn’t so much a problem as it is a nuisance.
You make an alliance, or you give someone permission to move military units through your territory.
See Screenshot “freeloaders”
For some reason, it has always been explained to me by members here that they are there in order to fulfill their treaty obligations to defend my territory.
There should be a way, without cancelling a military access agreement, to tell the offending country that we don’t need their help at the moment.
To make matters more humorous, Russia while they were stacking up all of these units in my territory (I was Prussia), Russia lost the Ukraine to the Crimean Khanate!

Friendly fire, now I am a believer that if a unit inadvertently fires at a friendly unit there should be some fratricide – I am not a proponent of fratricide, but it should be there to punish those who carelessly position their units – especially when it comes to artillery.
However, what really pisses me off is that ONLY THE HUMAN PLAYER is ever faced with fratricide.
See Screenshot “AI setup”
I have seen infantry units lined up one behind the other on the AI side firing with absolutely no losses from friendly fire, I do that and I would lose an entire unit.
As for the screenshot, the AI setup four horse artillery batteries exactly one behind the other. When the battle started, these batteries fired throughout the battle without losing a single artillery man, until my cavalry was able to get to them.
Again, if I do that I would quickly find myself with only one artillery battery.

I call the next one ‘the infamous naval chase’. It never fails, at the end of a naval battle one surviving enemy ship routes and flees at speeds that would make our modern power boats proud.
See Screenshots “naval chase 1” and “naval chase 2”
Let me set the stage here. A naval battle occured between my fleet (Russian) and a smaller Georgian fleet (AI).
Were at the end of the battle, I’ve either sunk (one 5th Rate, and one Brig) or captured (one 4th Rate, one 5th Rate), and their last ship – a heavily damaged 4th Rate screenshot naval chase 2 (lost 22 of the 48 guns it started with, and 53 out of a starting crew of 134), it also suffered hull and sail damage.
I’m giving chase in a slightly damaged 6th Rate screenshot naval chase 1 (lost 2 out of 32 guns, and 1 out of 115 men); I had kept the ship out of the fight for the most part – saving for a chase just like this that more often than not happens.
Despite being a faster ship AGAINST THE WIND a 6th Rate vs. a 4th Rate, despite a slightly damaged ship chasing a heavily damaged ship, and despite ‘tacking the wind’ as opposed to the straight line sailed by the 4th Rate ~ I could not catch that 4th Rate no matter what I did.
Again, this has been explained away by some here, by people whose opinions I respect, that it was due to the opposing side having a higher naval tech level. Now if the opposing side had been Britain, France, etc. and I was playing a minor state nation I would have to agree with that hypothesis. HOWEVER, I doubt highly that Georgia has a higher naval tech level than Russia in this game. I have built three schools and am near the end of every tech researchable (see Screenshots military, industrial, and philosophy techs), is someone going to tell me that Georgia with their one school is going to match that! The AI cheats!!!

continue on post #2

[panzer.tc]

continued from my previous post...


Which way did they go? This next one I call the ‘attack of the stupid’. I know this happens a lot, I have read many other complaints about this issue from other forum members.
See screenshot “crooked charge”
You’ve all seen it, you select a unit that you want to (bayonet) charge an enemy unit, you click on the bayonet button, then you select and right click on the enemy unit you want that unit to attack. Your unit then begins it charge – then suddenly veers away in another direction NOT towards the enemy unit you clicked! There was no restrictive or prohibitive terrain between the two units. My unit was in good order, and could see the enemy unit in question, it fact just moments prior was shooting at it with thier muskets.
It took several more command, and some distance before the unit could be brought to attack the enemy unit I had selected. A mistake which cost the camel jockeys that were already engaged with that unit additional casualties and eventually routed.


Finally reinforcements, nothing irritates me more than to have units, enemy or friendly, arriving on the battlefield from positions opposite from where they are located on the strategic map.
Is it really that hard to have reinforcements enter the battlefield from the directions they would have to move on the strategic map to get to the battlefield? NO, its not. Lazy Programming.
I have railed against this issue many times when enemy forces that were in front of me on the strategic map, suddenly appear behind me on the battlefield. However, there are other issues too with this.
See screenshot “reinforcements”
Background:
I had a lone cavalry unit (the regiment of horse) was attacked by a Georgian army, both sides received reinforcements during the battle.
However, none of my forces should have appeared BEHIND the Georgian lines. For example, the stack containing the general, heavy cavalry, howitzer battery, and the two gorodskiye streltsy (red melee) units, were ON THE STRATEGIC MAP directly BEHIND the cavalry unit attacked AND ADJACENT TO the stack of three infantry units that also arrived and should have arrived adjacent to them NOT on the OPPOSITE SIDE of the battlefield!
THEN to make matters worse, ONLY the general, heavy cavalry, and howitzer unit completely entered the battlefield in a manner that made them useful for anything. As it happened, they entered adjacent to and parallel with a larger enemy force that came in from the southeast, and they (my guys) immediately came under attack from them. With no support from the infantry, they suffered heavily with the howitzers completely lost. The two streltsy units partially entered then turned left and followed the red battlefield limit line for a distance that took them away from the battle – away from the general, cavalry, and artillery that needed their help!
While they were marching along the line not entirely on the map, I couldn’t select them and couldn’t control them!


When you add in all of the other things that are wrong with this game, you can understand why it is that players are so angry with CA over it. They include but are not limited to:
Diplomacy in ETW is so broke its WORTHLESS!
Years in ETW only have two turns – NTW has two week turns. Lazy Programming.
It takes upwards of three turns (without use of good roads) to march an army from the area around Warsaw to Moscow, or roughly 18 months – it took Napoleon a little over 4 months to march the same distance in real life.
Battle AI in vanilla is completely retarded, a little better with DMUC (no credit to CA) but still a far sight from what it could be.
Native tribes are too strong. Native American lancers and artillery, really.
France proper is only one province, Yet Poland starts with 5!
There is very little unit type variability, and “armies” are limited to only 20 units! (I know there are mods that claim to increase this to 30-40-plus numbers but I have never gotten any of them to work properly for me)
A player can only build a limited number of certain vessel types, 5th Rates, trade ships, etc. Why?
A player has to scuttle a ship in order to move an admiral to another ship, WHY! Lazy Programming.
At the beginning of the game in vanilla, England can build 4th Rates, Spain can build Galleons, but France can only build 6th Rates, using DMUC France can build 5th Rates – but that still does not close the production ability gap. France WAS NOT that far behind either England or Spain in ship building!


The concept of interception in this game is ridiculous.
Websters definitions
INTERCEPTION: the act of intercepting or state of being intercepted.
INTERCEPT: to stop or interrupt the progress or course of.
INTERCEPTOR: one that intercepts.
In all cases the INTERCEPTOR is the one performing the action. If an army is moving, and an enemy army intercepts that army – it is the INTERCEPTOR that is performing the action (i.e., the attacker) – in order to “to stop or interrupt the progress or course of” the moving army. IN ETW, if YOU are being intercepted – YOU ARE CONSIDERED THE ATTACKER, NOT THE INTERCEPTOR!
So please explain to me, how are you intercepting someone if you are NOT ATTACKING THEM.
I know very well how zones of control work IN REAL LIFE, I retired from the US Army after 21 years, as a tank platoon platoon sergeant, and tank commander. Zones of Control is an area of ground that one unit can exert its firepower over to control who moves through it – it does so by ATTACKING those it doesn’t wish to move through that zone. It doesn’t do so by claiming the right to intercept – then demanding that the moving unit attack them, that would be absurd!
This is where the game mechanics really show their confused, low quality state of affairs.
I have played this game enough times, and have been the target of interception AND the interceptor. And in EVERY CASE the human player is considered the attacker – I know, I have been through this with numerous other members. They say I don’t understand how interception works, or in one case I had a player say I was lying. Well, I gain nothing from posting on this site, whence there is no reason for me to lie about this game.
I have played (interception) situations purposely to test the game; and I tell you I have been the INTERCEPTOR on numerous occasions – and in many occasions refused battle with my opponent, and in every instance I LOST the battle because I didn’t drive the enemy from the field, I have also played (interception) situations as the the INTERCEPTED army – and again refused battle, and again in every instance LOST the battle because I didn’t drive the enemy from the field. So don’t tell me that the coding of this game isn’t confused and ‘retarded’.


I could go on...


This is why I will not be buying any further CA titles until they pull their heads out of their proverbial ‘fourth point of contact’ and fix these issues OR release the tools for the modding community to fix the issues that CA can’t or won’t.

[panzer.tc]

And another thing... (need a smiley for dead horse)

If the interceptor is NOT the attacker, why is he given the opportunity to "decline attack"?
And since that is the case, why have I been declared the loser for not attacking when I was intercepted?
hummm.

[Nosjack]

And another thing... (need a smiley for dead horse)

If the interceptor is NOT the attacker, why is he given the opportunity to "decline attack"?
And since that is the case, why have I been declared the loser for not attacking when I was intercepted?
hummm.

It's more like "Decline to intercept", clicking that will just let the army go by.

[panzer.tc]

Good Morning,

Quote:
Originally Posted by panzer.tc
And another thing... (need a smiley for dead horse)

If the interceptor is NOT the attacker, why is he given the opportunity to "decline attack"?
And since that is the case, why have I been declared the loser for not attacking when I was intercepted?
hummm.



from Nosjack

It's more like "Decline to intercept", clicking that will just let the army go by.

No, it's decline to ATTACK, see screen shot, I started this campaign this morning just to setup a situation where I would be given the opportunity to intercept. Look at the top of the screen I was given the "Opportunity to INTERCEPT"; then look at the bottom, I moved the mouse pointer to hover over the "X" and what came up - a "Decline Attack" text box definition.

See, I am a literalist - if the rules say one thing I expect the rules to uphold that which it says. If the game says the interceptor IS the ATTACKER - just as Websters Dictionary defines the INTERCEPTOR AS the ATTACKER, I should not be losing battles because I WAS INTERCEPTED THEN REFUSED TO FIGHT!
I didn't want the fight, I was attacked - the INTERCEPTOR should be required to drive me from the field NOT the other way around. But worse, ETW considers the HUMAN player the ATTACKER regardless of whether they are the INTERCEPTOR or the INTERCEPTED! Bad Programming!

[Nosjack]

You are getting way too riled up about this.

The way I think about is that the intercepting army has the opportunity to plant itself in the path of the oncoming army. You can decline to fight them, you just have to go around them and not go into their zone of control.

Just like a real situation, the defending army has the option to stay put or block the path of the incoming army, hence the "decline attack" Although, I do agree with you that it's lazy for it to be labeled as such instead of "decline to intercept".

[oqvist]

My big criticism of it is that the economics is so easy. Is it usual that you get immortal within 5 turns and to make a ton of money from the start and if you just get some trade fleets the income explodes. Maybe the economy would work if you get no trade ports at all? In one way I appreciate the little need for micro with governors and taxes like in previous TW titles. the micro management with taxes since you never need the extra income I have never pushed it about the med/med and only when concurring huge cities had to exempt them for a couple of turns max. The battles are somewhat challenging but less and less so as I learn the ropes but that´is how it goes. I don´t win battles with only militia against linemen or cavalry at least.
Naval battles is very impressive and there is a nice scope to it all. Field battles are great and since I wasn´t a huge fan of siege battles in the previous if it wasn´t for the 1 fps bug I get occasionally I would be quite happy with these sieges.

But I scratches my head over it being so easy. I remember TW games as hard in the beginning in the past. Not used to be able to steamroll from the start and have no threat hanging anywhere.

[panzer.tc]

Good morning,

from Nosjack

You are getting way too riled up about this.

I am not that worked up, just expressing my point.

I get mad at the game, but five minutes later I'm back in it. I still love the game, I just think that CA could have done a much better job creating it rather than just throwing games out into retail in order to see how much money they can make.
Otherwise they would have fixed all of the problems with it, added in the features that all of the gamers have been clamoring for, or at the very least - since they have no intention of fixing it themselves, they could have released the tools necessary for the modding community to do their job.

They need to watch how a proper game company like Sid Meier's Firaxis works - when they released Civilization V they released everything including the programming code for their game.
Gamers since Civilization II have been able to edit, modify, add or change anything they wanted.

from oqvist

But I scratches my head over it being so easy. I remember TW games as hard in the beginning in the past. Not used to be able to steamroll from the start and have no threat hanging anywhere.

I've long since moved on from just trying to beat the AI/game, you're right that is easy - even on hard/hard. My games now are more about role playing, how well I can beat the game with the least amount of losses (casualties - being a soldier I hate to lose any of my boys), and how successful economically I can be.

My complaints stem mostly from AI cheats (can't catch routing ships) to just poor programming (artillery units dying while moving). All of which when added together reduce the enjoyment I get from the game, and increase the frustration I have with CA. A lot of my minor complaints can be fixed, and some have been fixed with mods I've acquired from here.

[oqvist]

Ah and today I got these infamous corrupt save game it appears. When I hit end turn on my save game I get CTD. But I am really through with this campaign so it´s honestly something I wished for and a bit of a relief . It´s just compulsive gaming now trying to tidy things up. There is nothing left for me to see in ETW.

I never got the walking artillery bug. I got that 1 fps bug in sieges though which of course is frustrating. And the above bug should be heart breakening and make me throw the keyboard on the monitor but well lol. I also got what I must assume is a bug where you have to manually choose percussive missiles for your howitzers.

Still a good game and I like the combat better then previous TW titles. Sea battles is great but I never got any consistancies here. Either I win big or my ships routes for nothing and I loose big lol. but think CA can easilly make ETW 2 better

[Georgi Schukov]

i just wanted to say that i`m realy disapointed with the colonial troops recruteable in india.
european nations wich have colonies may be able recrute "special" troops in their american colonies, but not in india. there there`s only "sepoys" and "east india cav, thereby completly ignoring that there were various diferent kinds of regiments and forces during colonial india. the armys of the british raj in india were actualy devided into "madras, bengal and bombai" armys, so if accurat one may be capable to recrute "madras sepoys", "bengal sepoys" and "bombai sepoys" with various different uniforms. also the term sepoy is a bigger term with loads of subcategories.
the british colonial armys in india also had "sepoy" grenadiers, "sepoy" hawalder (wich were officers) and loads of different cavalry regiments. the idea of recruting "white" soldiers in india is nuts.
i would have expected there to be indian artilery crews, cavalry, officer crews and maybe even colonial elefant units.
and i am very disabointed that the only recruteable unit for european nations included in the "elit units of the east" dlc are these saber gurkhas. i would have liked to have seen gurkhas in their black-greenish uniform - wich they wore under british serice, aswell as i would have liked to see the famous first madras regiment, and further more sikh cavalry under british service as well as sikh footsoldiers were amongst the most feared troops under british comand.
defenatly, there way more to have been gotten out of india.

[Capt'nJJ]

I am completely disappointed in the naval warfare aspect of the game. It feels much too arcade-y. That being said, the playable factions area needs a much wider selection. Yes, the minor factions would be harder to create and the majority of them are not "big players" in that time period. But the game would have been much better off if CA had taken the time to create those small factions. This would have lead to a greater diversity in the game. Unlike the Major Factions which all have the same basic unit line-up and therefore play waaaaaaaaaaaaay to similar. It should have been like ME2 where most factions were playable. The excuse that the minor factions were not "big players" is not a very good one. I do not remember Denmark conquering all of Europe and the Middle East in the crusade time period. The point is that Total War is not about perfect historical accuracy. It is a game of strategy and multiple ways to play the game. From England to Egypt, every faction is unit and plays different. Instead of making lame excuses as to why the factions cannot be played, CUT the unneeded, and boring, "Road to Independence" "Campaign" and use the wasted talent from that to create more unique unit line-ups and more FACTIONS.
and the BUGS, OMG the BUGS. Even after, what? 2-3 years after launch? This game has more bugs than all other total war games COMBINED.

That being said, this is still one of my favorite Total War games because it is set in my favorite time period. PLEASE PLEASE eventually release a Empires 2!!! But fix all the crap: bugs, factions, naval combat, weird orange square, and most of all AUTO-RESOLVE.

end rant. Thank you for reading!
Captain J. Justice!
TO WAR!!

[Steward Denethor II]

I posted this in a different thread. Basically my complaint is that ships blow up too easily in vanilla, I hear mods help this somewhat though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Today I decided to give Empire Total War another chance (for mods) and I reinstalled the game and I plan to try Darthmod. But while I was waiting for the download I decided to a custom battle for a possible Pirate AAR. (In perhaps a few months). It was a full experienced Sloop against a Galleon. I was destorying the enemy, I killed over 1/3 of the crew and victory seemed certain. The enemy hadn't fired a single shot. Then the galleon fired 2 cannons (the ones in the front) and guess what, MY ING SHIP EXPLODED! I would have been furious if I didn't think it was funny. I was still annoyed and a bit shocked (Edit: MORE than a bit shocked). Any one else have funny battles?





On the plus side I got a beautiful screenshot.

Also I think ships blow up too much in vanilla. Just my opinion.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

I expected ETW would have solved some battle AI problems from late M2TW but last night I tried a battle for the first time and won a heroic victory. I did not even understand some of the controls or the function buttons and was not aware at first that dragoons could fire only when dismounted or that cannons could not move or that musket range was only about 50 yards, etc.

Also it is not possible to play ETW without internet access, e.g. while on holidays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My three short AARs:
[BC] The Maharajah and the Guild of Thieves – a Chauhan Rajput AAR
[1648] Thirty Years' War
[Kingdoms] Antioch Crusaders Mod campaign
and something not so short - [FKoC] Times full of Distemper
Reviewed by robinzx at the Critic's Quill, Issue 31

[LestaT]

Also it is not possible to play ETW without internet access, e.g. while on holidays.

It is. Just make sure you run Steam offline mode first before going on to holidays.

[JaM]

You can turn Steam into offline mode even without internet access

[Saint Nicholas]

I have a major criticism. After what.. four years? Random CTDs are still very much a part of the game. I never experienced them when I was playing on my laptop for months, but since building a new gaming rig, it's all I get after a few turns and it's really annoying. The game is not playable in this state and I can't understand how a game developer can just move on and forget about this game when it's clear myself and so many others are still experiencing these nagging issues.

I love this game, I really want to play it. I want to be able to play with without experiecing CTDs all the time and risking hours worth of battles, campaigns and progress to a stupid error.

[JaM]

that is strange... must say, i dont remember when ETW crashed last time... i find it much more stable than NTW or S2TW...