Buying for Multiplayer?

[Krasnikof]

Scip mate don't argue with him. The fanboys will always argue that NTW is better. I'll take faction balance and SLIGHTLY slower gameplay over balance and SLIGHTLY faster gameplay anyday tbh.

empire fanboys will always argue empire is better

[daniu]

empire fanboys will always argue empire is better

And how is NTW more varied and balanced then ETW?

[Krasnikof]

And how is NTW more varied and balanced then ETW?

what a random question why are u asking me?

[daniu]

what a random question why are u asking me?

Because those two are the points brought up by the "fanboys" in favor of ETW, and you seemed to me like you were disagreeing.

[Krasnikof]

Because those two are the points brought up by the "fanboys" in favor of ETW, and you seemed to me like you were disagreeing.

I just wanted to point out that carswell didnt make a good point since hes just saying well i like empire better so its a better game but those guys who like ntw better cant say its a better game which is a ridiculus thing to say

[evulclown]

Krasnikof seemed to be merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Carswells statement -- Nothing more, nothing less.

I played the hell out of Empire from release until NTW was out. It's a fantastic game, and I miss aspects of it and especially some of the unique units such as grenzers, hand mortars and elephants. It has a lot of flaws though, but so does NTW.

I'd compare Empire to chess and Napoleon to speed chess though. So take that as you will in terms of which takes more skills or is more enjoyable. Any skill that Empire required, Napoleon upped it by adding a faster pace. If that's not your thing, fine.

With regards to Balance? You're right, Empires balance is totally different to Napoleons, which is better is down to personal taste I guess. As I pointed out earlier (and this is simplifying things) a clone army will certainly be similar to another clone army and thus "balanced", if that's what you want to call it. Conversely a country like Denmark in NTW is utterly outclassed by a country like France. I mean, is that fair? It'll certainly be slightly harder for the Danish player to win... But at the end of the day, why should Denmarks army be equally as strong as Frances?

There's definitely a gap between the minor and major nations in NTW that needs a unit DLC to flesh out. I'd say with regards to the major nations though there's a rock paper scissor approach to the balance. they all seem to have their pros and cons that even out. You also shouldn't discount the effectiveness of minor nations, I enjoy playing them all the time and they do bring their own strengths to the field. I remember when everyone classed the Ottomans as "minor" and useless for example...

Bush mentioned that games go the same way play and build wise. Well I'd say that's down to the player. During Empire and NTW I always strive to make new unique builds and I wouldn't say NTW is any worse than Empire at all in that regard. You trade lights for rifles in empire. And if anything the "skirmisher" issue is worse in Empire because of:

- The slow movement speed when advancing on them, a user has longer to react or fire on a unit.
- The slow firing speed where every unit in a row needs to have reloaded before a line unit will fire. It makes aggressive manoeuvring pretty counteractive.
- The range disparity, with rifles being used they have 125 range over the line who only have 70 range in Empire. with a comparison of 80 range for line in NTW and 100 for lights.
- The speed of horses and the shock value of high charge bonuses make lights fragile in NTW.
- Most of the rifle units in Empire get stakes.

It doesn't take a genius to work out which game makes it tougher to 'abuse' lights regardless of if you kyte. Light infantry are dangerous in NTW though a volley from 5 units of prussian lights will ruin your day.

The bulk of armies I use at the moment have very few, if any lights and a large portion of cavalry. Scipio, frankly your argument so far is based around the contention that Empire is better because it rewards a lack of basic tactical skill or imagination. Cav in NTW, (especially low moral units) are certainly fragile and need to be used carefully. You're right you can't just throw them head on into a unit and expect success like you might be able to in Empire, be smart. If you're having no success with cav, rethink how you're using them not how the game had modelled them.

Attack on multiple fronts and overwhelm your opponents micro to ensure cav charges are more successful. if a unit doesn't start forming square before any horses touch it, it's incapable of doing so. If a unit hasn't fully formed square when the charge hits, they'll still take damage and if kept in sustained melee during a half formed square actually break. You should be using your cav as a tool, if you've forced a square that's complimented the line support you should have firing at their square -- now pull out and find another target.

IMO cav in NTW are the most dangerous units and I find the notion of you saying they're weak and useless pretty hilarious. It's why I thought you were joking in earlier posts...

Edit: sorry for the book

[daniu]

I just wanted to point out that carswell didnt make a good point

Ah okay, fighting fire with fire

But at the end of the day, why should Denmarks army be equally as strong as Frances?

For gameplay reasons purely, historical accuracy is even less important than gameplay in MP than it is in SP.
So why should it be equally strong? If not to avoid seeing the same armies over and over every game, it doesn't need to be equally strong, but at least have strengths that even out their weaknesses.

I enjoy playing them all the time and they do bring their own strengths to the field. I remember when everyone discounted the Ottomans as "minor" for example...
Bush mentioned that games go the same way play and build wise. Well I'd say that's down to the player.

The problem is that it all seems very black and white to me.
Elites: France, Lights: Prussia, Line: GB, Melee: Ottomans, Artillery: Russia. Basically all aspects of the game are taken by a major nation, and minors don't even have a niche to fill.

It's only down to the player if you're playing for fun (which I do, but that's not the point); any competetive environment basically forces same-old-same-old, both in choice of faction and army setup.
I found it much more worthwhile and interesting to experiment with builds in Empire. In NTW, the balance is so bad in certain areas that you can actually choose a "wrong" setup, while in ETW, I feel you can still make the best of most combinations.

if anything the "skirmisher" issue is worse in Empire

Oh yes, I nearly forgot that.
Yeah, the light inf adjustment (ranges and rifle unit size) were a great improvement.
I also like the somewhat improved artillery.

Overall, I would say:
Napoleon is much better technically and more fun in the beginning due to the much improved graphics and the more dynamic playstyle.
IMHO, it gets stale much faster though, mostly because of the lacking variety.

[evulclown]

For gameplay reasons purely, historical accuracy is even less important than gameplay in MP than it is in SP.
So why should it be equally strong? If not to avoid seeing the same armies over and over every game, it doesn't need to be equally strong, but at least have strengths that even out their weaknesses.

The problem is that it all seems very black and white to me.
Elites: France, Lights: Prussia, Line: GB, Melee: Ottomans, Artillery: Russia. Basically all aspects of the game are taken by a major nation, and minors don't even have a niche to fill.

This is basically down to our differing opinions and arguing about it won't go anywhere.

The way I feel though, I prefer a game with character. They could shove LINE INFANTRY, RIFLEMAN, HEAVY CAVALRY with the same stats and a different colour jacket into each of the minor nations in the name of balance but that's quite frankly boring. With so many nations as well you can't expect all of them to bring something effective to the table that puts them above every other nation. It's not realistic and it's not the case in Empire either.

The minor nations do have their pros and cons -- Even Denmark, arguably the worst nation in the game is basically the Great Britain of the minor nations with access to light and heavy cavalry, elites and a range of skirmishers. That's their pro over a nation such as the Dutch, who instead have better lights etc.

You can't possibly expect EVERY nation to have something totally unique though. There's only so many areas of combat to have units for and naturally certain nations will be the best at certain areas. Even minor nations have things that certain major nations do not though. For example, Denmark has a range of skirmishers which is something France does not. If you see the added range as a worthwhile trade off for the benefits that France has, is of little relevance... That's their "thing".

You have to take into consideration that a nation might not have the BEST elite ingame or the best skirmishers or the best heavy cav, but they might have the third best of all of those making them more well rounded than another nation. OR they might shove all their eggs in one basked as you mentioned Portugal earlier -- 2nd best? standard line in game, best lights, abysmal cavalry no access to elites etc, there's a whole different play style right there compared to a country like sweden who has average line, access to elites though, a decent selection of cav and some very handy shooter cav... no lights but has skirmishers. they both have their pros and cons.

Don't mark off nations as one hit wonders too. Russia might have nice art in the form of unicorns but they have many other benefits. Ottomans likewise are a massively varied nation and I guarantee I could either beat you or give you a run for your money using Ottomans vrs France with 0 melee infantry.

They do, as I said before need to release a DLC fleshing out minors with a few more unit choices though there's no question of that.

It's only down to the player if you're playing for fun (which I do, but that's not the point); any competetive environment basically forces same-old-same-old, both in choice of faction and army setup.
I found it much more worthwhile and interesting to experiment with builds in Empire. In NTW, the balance is so bad in certain areas that you can actually choose a "wrong" setup, while in ETW, I feel you can still make the best of most combinations.

I disagree, I play competitively with unique and controversial builds all the time with success. You take a dumb build for example 15 rifles and 5 cav in Empire you'll get sodomized the same as if you take 15 lights and 5 cav in NTW.

Can I just say on the "same old boring builds" front as I said earlier -- It's the same for Empire. For the year I played it, the bulk of players took the same build and played the same strategy. This was compounded even further by the fact that most nations units were EXACTLY the same too -- stat for stat just a different colour jacket. I find that utterly boring and if that's what's needed for balance in a lot of your eyes then GL with empire.

That happens in every game though. Someone pioneers a unique build, people see it's effective then it becomes a popular cookie cutter build that others copy. That's not to say it's the only build you can ever use effectively for fun or competitive play. This game is still evolving and the popular builds are far from unbeatable.


That's not to say you can't make unique builds in Empire though, you can -- Just like you can in NTW.

I'm rambling now though, but you get the point.

[Tempiic]

Ah okay, fighting fire with fire


For gameplay reasons purely, historical accuracy is even less important than gameplay in MP than it is in SP.
So why should it be equally strong? If not to avoid seeing the same armies over and over every game, it doesn't need to be equally strong, but at least have strengths that even out their weaknesses.

Well you got something there. It might have been better if these minor nations had ended up as a simple mould covering the basic unit types with perhaps some slight difference amongst each other to spice things up, and where the majors will add to this basic mix their advantages, if you know what I mean. But thats just a what if thingy. A DLC to correct this would be really nice though. Amongst the naval factions its actually much much worse. I think I'd have played with the dutch very much (their units look nice) if they had also lancers and maybe a guard unit.

The problem is that it all seems very black and white to me.
Elites: France, Lights: Prussia, Line: GB, Melee: Ottomans, Artillery: Russia. Basically all aspects of the game are taken by a major nation, and minors don't even have a niche to fill.

Well maybe thats just you. For example I rarely field their elites if I pick France, preffering their non-foreign line mixed with both their lights and their cav.

My ottomans don't include that many melee units most of the time either.

And I like Russia for its simple but good looking infantry, bayonettes and cavalry.

And for some reason, I prefer Austria over Prussia. I think it might be the cav difference. Eventhough Prussian uniforms look better.

I don't play GB out of principle, ignoring these few random matches where I had no choice

But anyways, thanks for the good explanation Daniu and Evulclown. Good to know I made a good choice. The limited amount of maps still suck though. But at least both games suffer from that issue.

[daniu]

Well maybe thats just you. For example I rarely field their elites if I pick France, preffering their non-foreign line mixed with both their lights and their cav.

Yeah I was being somewhat polemic there.
As a matter of fact, evulclown inspired me to go back to regular MP and try out some crazy builds which just seem cool to me. Too bad I probably won't have much time in the near future to actually go for that

[Tempiic]

Yeah that is too bad (your lack of time)

[Biggun69]

I think napoleon total war is selling for quite cheap so I think you should buy it to get a feel for the total war series before you play shogun 2.
This will probably give you a smoother transition from Napoleon tw to Shogun 2. Hope this helps.

[Preatorians100]

i would say get it m8
not much

but it is a great game!!

[triphammer]

once i bought a gerbil...

[Preatorians100]

once i bought a gerbil...

LOL......

[Biggun69]

Yes it is definately a great buy.

The multiplayer experience is lag free with no bugs or glitches what-so-ever.

All the nations are very balanced, much better than Empire total war.

There is no way that anyone can hack this game or cheat so you dont need to worry about playing with an unfair disadvantage.

CA are constantly producing updates and patches to ensure that we can have the best gaming experience possible.

Yes, to be honest this is a very well polished game and probably one of the best RTS games around

There are big tournaments with pro players competing for thousands of dollars.

You should def go buy this game ASAP! GO GO GO !

[Preatorians100]

Biggun dont lie to the poor guy/ girl im not sexist

and you forgot to say that there are no noobs in NTW other than pointman.

[Carswell]

Yes it is definately a great buy.

The multiplayer experience is lag free with no bugs or glitches what-so-ever.

All the nations are very balanced, much better than Empire total war.

There is no way that anyone can hack this game or cheat so you dont need to worry about playing with an unfair disadvantage.

CA are constantly producing updates and patches to ensure that we can have the best gaming experience possible.

Yes, to be honest this is a very well polished game and probably one of the best RTS games around

There are big tournaments with pro players competing for thousands of dollars.

You should def go buy this game ASAP! GO GO GO !

[Preatorians100]

lol great pic carswell

[Biggun69]

Biggun dont lie to the poor guy/ girl im not sexist

and you forgot to say that there are no noobs in NTW other than pointman.

WAIT WTF ?

I THOUGHT WE WERE TAKLING ABOUT STARCRAFT 2

WOOPS

ok well Napoleon total war is Basically the opposite to everything I just listed below:

Yes it is definately a great buy.

The multiplayer experience is lag free with no bugs or glitches what-so-ever.

All the nations are very balanced, much better than Empire total war.

There is no way that anyone can hack this game or cheat so you dont need to worry about playing with an unfair disadvantage.

CA are constantly producing updates and patches to ensure that we can have the best gaming experience possible.

Yes, to be honest this is a very well polished game and probably one of the best RTS games around

There are big tournaments with pro players competing for thousands of dollars.

You should def go buy this game ASAP! GO GO GO !