How come Napoleon: Total War looks so much better than Empire?

**Fidena** · April 19, 2014, 11:37 PM

I bought both games assuming they'd be very similar, but I was stunned just how much better Napoleon looks as a game on every level, which is surprising, since both games use the same engine. Are there any mods out there that import as many of the visual effects of Napoleon to Empire as possible? I love Empire's scope, and I know it sounds vain, but after playing Napoleon for awhile it's hard to stomach in comparison. If Empire was released with Napoleon's graphics and visual style it'd be my favorite game.

**LestaT** · April 22, 2014, 01:03 AM

Same but updated engine as always with TW history. Medieval looks better than Shogun even as both from the same engine. Medieval II looks better than Rome even both from the same engine.

**TheCenturion24** · April 25, 2014, 04:16 AM

Put briefly, Napoleon is new than Empire. Shogun II is based on the Empire engine, but it still looks better, doesn't it?

In detail, Napoleon's graphical style was better thought out than Empire. More effort has been put into atmospheric effects, especially in particles, and rendering has been improved overall. Texture and model fidelity has been improved. The units are much 'cleaner' than the Empire ones, which makes them look clearer and toy-soldier like... some like it, some hate it. I find I have better performance.

All of this adds up for a better looking game.

**evenflowjimbo** · April 27, 2014, 12:13 PM

The funny part is that I get lag in Napoleon and Empire. However, I don't lag on Shogun 2 or Rome 2 with the same settings. Mostly medium to high.

**TheCenturion24** · April 28, 2014, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by evenflowjimbo

The funny part is that I get lag in Napoleon and Empire. However, I don't lag on Shogun 2 or Rome 2 with the same settings. Mostly medium to high.

Shogun II was actually pretty well organised. On the other hand, I'm shocked you get good performance on Rome II. That's the worst of the lot.

**Basiliskos** · May 31, 2014, 10:59 PM

Regarding the battles, NTW looks like crap on my computer compared to ETW, which looks worse than MIITW. The campaign map looks better... but the campaign map could look like Windows 3.1 and I would not care.

**Ciciro** · June 01, 2014, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Basiliskos

Regarding the battles, NTW looks like crap on my computer compared to ETW, which looks worse than MIITW. The campaign map looks better... but the campaign map could look like Windows 3.1 and I would not care.

How goods your computer?

**KetsaKunta** · June 01, 2014, 01:09 PM

Empire looks great with some fiddling of the settings and maybe forcing 32x aa in a tweak program.
You can keep upgrading the same engine forever, but whats the point.

**Hochmeistern** · June 04, 2014, 01:48 PM

Personally i always thought EMpire was kind of disappointing but that may be because of how fond I was of Medieval II.

**Deepstrike101** · July 15, 2014, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Basiliskos

Regarding the battles, NTW looks like crap on my computer compared to ETW, which looks worse than MIITW. The campaign map looks better... but the campaign map could look like Windows 3.1 and I would not care.

Graphics, for me, go like this:
M2TW > NTW > ETW > RTW

However, neither Napoleon or Empire allow me to set higher graphics, despite my pc being able to run it just fine. I run M2TW at all full graphics.

I don't understand all the hate towards Napoleon's soldiers. For me, at least, they certainly look better than Empire's on my other computer (runs at full graphics) and Empire just looks crappy in battles, imo. Too much sliding and moshpitting. Just all the drawbacks of warscape.

**Didz** · July 16, 2014, 07:05 AM

It's a newer game designed for higher spec GFX configurations and with a higher GFX budget.

However, in my opinion ETW is still the better game. NTW lacks the depth and strategic game play included in ETW, and only covers a portion of the geographic area affected by the Napoleonic Wars. ETW is a far more absorbing game in terms of strategy and replay value. Basically it looks like they put all their effort into the way it looks and too little into how it plays.

Hence over 2,000 hours invested in ETW, and probably just over 200 in NTW.

**gaunty14** · July 18, 2014, 06:16 AM

Really, I would say the opposite (in part), I feel far more invested in NTW with the much better campaign map of Europe, better generals which you can't spam quite as much, much better ship combat where ships will surrender due to crew/gun loss rather than sinking more often.

Not to mention that the fiasco that was the buggy release of ETW never happened in NTW as it was far more polished on release.

**Didz** · July 18, 2014, 07:22 AM

Each to his own I suppose, but as you can see the hours played really says it all in my case. A more detailed map of Europe means little to me if the rest of the world is missing, and likewise even if i accepted that naval battles were better in NTW than ETW, there is nothing worth fighting a naval battle for as it's impossible for Napoleon to rebuild the French colonial Empire and restore the glory of France in a world restricted by an arbitrary map edge. Personally, I found NTW combat less rewarding than that of ETW anyway, but that might be the result of the mods I have installed. Ships don't blow up or sink very often in my game, and usually most of my navy is composed of captured vessels.

The buggy release of ETW was appalling, but was eventually cleaned by the modding community to the point where the game is playable and doesn't freeze that often. By comparison, NTW may not have been as buggy on release but it was flawed in basic concept and design, so that whilst it is playable it actually just boring to play.